Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, in the Committee, read.

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25th May]:
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:—

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 22, line 22, leave out 'Postmaster General' and insert 'Post Office'.

Standing Order 27, line 57, leave out 'a' and insert 'one' leave out from 'Office' in line 59 to end of line 61 and insert 'and two copies at the Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 29, line 3, after 'system', insert 'two copies of'.
Line 8, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.
Line 9, leave out 'ministry' and insert 'department, and one copy'.
Line 9, leave out 'at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and'.

Standing Order 30, line 5, leave out 'Ministry of Power' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry'.
Line 6, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 30A, line 4, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 31, line 6, leave out 'Board of Trade' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry'.

Standing Order 34, line 9, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and add 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 37, line 15, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 39, line 1, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 14 and insert 'On or before the fourth day of December printed copies shall be deposited (1) of every bill, three at the Department of the Environment; two at the Department of Social Services and at the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and one at the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Office of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster'.

Standing Order 45, line 32, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 46, lines 4 and 5, leave out 'Board of Trade or Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of Trade and Industry or Department of the Environment'.
Line 5, leave out 'offices' and insert 'Departments'.

Standing Order 47, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'Ministry of Housing and Local Government' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 144, line 13, leave out 'and the Board of Trade'.

Standing Order 146, line 5, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
Line 7, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 147, line 7, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
Line 9, leave out 'Ministry of Transport' and insert 'Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 154, line 11, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.
Line 23, leave out 'Minister of Transport' and insert 'Secretary of State for the Environment'.

Standing Order 155, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert 'Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for the Environment'.
Line 8, leave out 'Board or Minister' and insert 'Secretary of State'.

Standing Order 156B, line 16, leave out 'Minister of Housing and Local Government or'.

Standing Orders page 98, leave out Table of Fees and insert new Table of Fees as follows:


A TABLE OF FEES TO BE CHARGED AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS


I. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE PROMOTERS OF A PRIVATE BILL


For the deposit of the Petition, Bill, Plan and other Documents required to be deposited in the Private Bill Office
£5


For each day on which the Examiner shall inquire into compliance with the Standing Orders
£5

FOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE


On the First Reading of the Bill.
£15


On the Second Reading of the Bill.
£15


On the Report from the Committee on the Bill.
£15


On the Third Reading of the Bill
£15


Additional fee on a Debate at Seven o'clock on one or more evenings on any one stage of the Bill
£25

The promoters or Bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes whereby no private profit or advantage is derived, and Personal Bills brought from the Lords, may be charged one-half of the preceding fees.

Except for such Bills as are mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, the preceding Fees on First, Second and Third Readings, and on Report, shall be increased, according to the total sum of the moneys which it is proposed to raise or expend under the authority of the Bill, in accordance with the following scale:—
If the sum be two hundred thousand pounds or more, and less than one million pounds, twice the amount of these Fees;
If the sum be one million pounds or more, and less than two million pounds, three times the amount of these Fees;
If the sum be two million pounds or more, and less than three million pounds, four times the amount of these Fees;
If the sum be three million pounds or more, and less than five million pounds, five times the amount of these Fees;
If the sum be five million pounds or more, six times the amount of these Fees.

FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A COMMITTEE OR THE COURT OF REFEREES


For each of the first three days on which a Committee on an opposed Bill shall sit
£10


For each subsequent day
£15


For each day on which a Committee on an unopposed Bill shall sit
£3


For each day on which the Court of Referees shall sit
£10

For proceedings before a Joint Committee one-half of the preceding fees shall be charged.

II. FEES TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS AND MEMORALISTS


On the deposit of any Memorial complaining that the Standing Orders have not been complied with
£1


On the presentation of any Petition in favour of or against a Private Bill.
£2


For each day on which the Examiner inquires into any Memorial complaining of non-compliance with the Standing Order.
£2


For each day on which a Petitioner appears before any Committee or before the Court of Referees
£2


For each day on which a Petitioner appears before a Joint Committee.
£1

III. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE APPLICANTS FOR A PROVISIONAL ORDER

On the Second Reading of a Bill to confirm one or more Provisional Orders, other than a Bill to confirm an Order or Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, the applicants for each Provisional Order included in the Bill shall be charged a fee of £15.

For proceedings before the Court of Referees or any Committee, the fees charged to applicants and opponents shall be at the same rates as those charged for similar proceedings on a Private Bill.

IV. FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER


For each day on which an applicant (other than a Minister) appears before—



(a) the Chairmen
£1·50


(b) a Joint Committee
£5


On the deposit of each Petition or Counter-Petition, a copy of either
£1


For each day on which a Petition in either House appears before the Chairmen or before a Joint Committee
£1


For each day on which a Counter-Petitioner in either House appears before a Joint Committee
£1

V. GENERAL FEES


On each Motion, Order or Proceeding in the House upon a Private Bill, Petition, or matter not otherwise charged
£1


For a copy of any Paper or Document, per folio of 72 words—If five folios or under
19p


If above five folios, per folio.
4P


For a copy of a Plan, made by the parties
£1·50


For the inspection of a Plan or other Document
37½p


For each day on which any parties shall be heard by Counsel at the Bar, from each side
£10


For each day on which a Committee of the whole House shall sit on a Private Bill or matter
£6


For serving any Summons or Order on a Private Bill or matter
£1


For each Order for the commitment or discharge of any person
£1


For taking any person into custody for a Breach of Privilege or Contempt
£5


For taking any person into custody for any other cause
£2


For each day on which any person shall be in custody
£1


For Riding Charges per mile
5p

VI. FEES TO BE PAID ON THE TAXATION OF COSTS ON PRIVATE BILLS


For each application or reference to the Taxing Officer of the House of Commons for the Taxation of a Bill of Costs.
£1


For each £100 of any Bill of Costs allowed by the Taxing Officer.
£1


On the deposit of a Memorial complaining of a Report of the Taxing Officer
£1


For any Certificate which shall be signed by the Speaker
£1


For a copy of any Document in the office of the Taxing Officer, per folio of 72 words
5p

VII. FEES TO BE TAKEN BY THE SHORTHAND WRITER


For each day he shall attend Home
£7·82½


Distance of more than 60 miles from Charing Cross
£9·27½


For the transcript of his notes, per folio of 72 words—



where carbon copies of transcript are supplied
13½p


where no carbon copies of transcript are supplied
19p


carbon copy, per folio of 72 words.
1p


where evidence is sound recorded
25p

The preceding fees shall be charged, paid, and received at such times, in such manner and under such regulations as the Speaker shall from time to time direct.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing Starts (Private Sector)

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of houses started in the private sector during the first quarter of 1971; and what increase this represents over the same quarter in 1970.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The number was 1,832–29 per cent. more than were started in the first quarter of 1970.

Mr. Sproat: These are absolutely first-class figures for Scotland. What actions on the part of the Government caused these figures to be achieved? May we have an assurance that every step will be taken to increase the number of owner-occupiers in Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I agree that it is desirable to increase the number of people who are able to own their own homes. These figures have been brought about partly by various measures that have been taken by the Government to make it more attractive for people to become home owners.

Mr. Sillars: As the hon. Gentleman is in a boastful mood, may I ask him to answer the question which has been repeatedly put to him, namely, will the Conservative Government build more houses in total than were built in the last year of the Labour Administration?

Mr. Younger: That is another question which is not related only to private house building. I have consistently told the hon. Gentleman that our objective is to build as many houses as possible in areas of general need.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Recalling that 1969 was the best year since the war for private house building, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether he thinks the Conservative Government will achieve in 1971 the record figure of that year? If


so, the figure for the first quarter is very disappointing.

Mr. Younger: The figure for the first quarter of 1971 relates, of course, to only one quarter of the year, and one should not read too much into it. However, the present trend represents an encouraging start.

Fishing Rights (Hunter Report)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Hunter Report on Fishing Rights.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): My right hon. Friend is preparing proposals.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the angling community have an official Governmental view before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When proposals have been prepared they will be announced in the proper way.

Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great potential which exists in the Highlands of Scotland from the point of view of trout fishing in hill lochs? Will he bear in mind that restocking, which is essential, will not take place unless some assurance of legal protection is given?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend raises an important point, of which we are aware. I assure him that it will be taken into account in our consideration of this matter.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition will look with a jaundiced eye on proposals which protect only trout-fishing rights and which do not take into account the need to open up fishing in Scotland to the vast majority of the population?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to put it in that way, for the Labour Party took five years simply to study the proposals and then did not announce a decision. We shall certainly do much better than that.

Mr. Brewis: Is the much-increased catch by drift netting off the north-east coast of England likely to affect stocks in Scottish rivers?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is a matter which we shall be considering.

Home Purchase (Mortgages)

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further proposals he has to strengthen the building societies in Scotland, and for making mortgages easier and cheaper to obtain.

Mr. Younger: The building societies have agreed to improve their lending arrangements, and for our part we are making the option mortgage scheme more flexible. The societies and their mortgagees will also benefit from the Budget proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially from the abolition of stamp duty on mortgages and the reductions in income tax and corporation tax. We will take further steps if these are necessary to promote home ownership in Scotland.

Mr. Gray: These measures will unquestionably be helpful. Can my hon. Friend confirm that there are many people in the lower income groups who would like to become home owners? What steps is it proposed to take to assist them?

Mr. Younger: I am very conscious of that problem, as my hon. Friend knows—and this is one of the reasons why we have removed all restrictions on mortgage lending by local authorities, so that they will more easily be able to fill the gap between those whom building societies are unable to help and those who would still wish to own their own homes.

Mr. Douglas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any discussions that have taken place between the Scottish banks and the Bank of England in relation to the Bank of England's discussions document? How will that affect building society deposits in Scotland and the ability of building societies to reduce their interest rates to borrowers?

Mr. Younger: This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have had no representations from the building societies in Scotland that this will cause any difficulties for them.

Alcoholism

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether


he will give details of the research now being done into the relationship between alcoholism or excessive drinking and crime, stating by whom such research is being financed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of four programmes of criminological research in Scotland known to me to be concerned in part with the relationship between alcoholism or excessive drinking and crime.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the hon. Gentleman say how much of this research is financed by the brewers? Can he also confirm the figures given by his hon. Friend in a speech a week or two ago, when he said that 20 per cent. of crime in Scotland was directly related to excessive drinking? Will he persuade his hon. Friends to use the £150,000 that the Tory Party got from the brewers in the last two years leading up to the election for this very socially desirable purpose of research into crime and drinking?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my right hon. Friend has already indicated in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), we accept this relationship between excessive drinking and crime. Indeed, this is a matter which we are referring to the Clayson Committee. This is a very helpful way of approaching it.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of Distillers lives in my constituency. He markets splendid products, which I strongly recommend. If my hon. Friend were to approach him for some money for research, I am sure that he would not receive a dusty answer.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. What we have to remember is that the question of the misuse of alcohol is primarily the responsibility of the individual. What is important is to make sure that public attitudes towards this matter are right.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Is it not time that a forensic laboratory was set up in Scotland to investigate the causes of crime generally?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Question relates to drinking, and we are financing

research on that. Indeed, we have not so far refused any application for grants for criminological research projects into this field.

Following is the information:

CRIMINOLOGICAL STUDIES IN SCOTLAND WHICH INCLUDE THE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL

1. A programme of studies of violence and the misuse of alcohol including comparative studies of psychological and social characteristics of various categories of offenders, with special reference to violent and chronic drunken offenders, is being conducted in the Department of Psychiatry at Edinburgh University.
2. The Department of Criminal Law and Criminology at Edinburgh University is conducting a research project on homicides, part of which includes a study of the state of drunkenness of the aggressor and the victim.
3. The Departments of Psychiatry and Criminal Law and Criminology at Edinburgh University are conducting a study of the circumstances of crimes of violence tried before the High Court in 1969.
4. The Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency has initiated a project to study crimes of violence in Glasgow which will include the collection of information on the extent to which the consumption of alcohol was a factor in the assaults.

The second project receives financial support from the Social Sciences Research Council and the others from the Scottish Home and Health Department.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the age groups, for males and females, at which there is the greatest incidence of alcoholism; what is the number of deaths as a result in those age groups; and what relationship that number bears to the five most lethal diseases.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Statistics on the incidence of alcoholism in Scotland are not available. The rate of admission to hospital with a diagnosis of alcoholism is highest in the 35–44 and 45–54 age groups for both men and women. Deaths in Scotland from alcoholism and alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver are very much fewer than from any of the five most common causes of death; I shall publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Eadie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Would he agree that inadequate research facilities are available to find out the incidence of alcoholic disease in Scotland? For example, is he aware that medical opinion is fast reaching the conclusion that death from alcoholic disease is rapidly reaching


the top of the table in the incidence of killer diseases?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's view is not supported by the statistics which have been published so far, but I agree that there is a problem because alcoholics are to be found in all walks

THE FIVE MOST COMMON CAUSES OF DEATH IN SCOTLAND IN 1970


Cause
All Ages
0-
5-
15-
25-


Males


Ischaemic heart disease (I.C.D. 410–414)
9,909
—
—
2
26


Malignant neoplasms (I.C.D. 140–209).
6,763
23
30
47
61


Cerebrovascular disease (I.C.D. 430–438)
3,819
8
—
8
21


Bronchitis, emphysema, asthma (I.C.D. 490–493)
2,137
—
4
5
4


Pneumonia (I.C.D. 480–486)
1,440
147
9
6
10


Females


Ischaemic heart disease (I.C.D. 410–414)
7,641
—
—
4
6


Cerebrovascular disease (I.C.D. 430–438)
6,131
3
1
7
16


Malignant neoplasms (I.C.D. 140–209)
5,857
13
23
25
68


Pneumonia (I.C.D. 480–486)
1,604
110
9
7
11


Other forms of heart disease (I.C.D. 420–429)
1,337
—
—
3
2

Cause
35-
45-
55-
65-
75


Males


Ischaemic heart disease (I.C.D. 410–414)
232
995
2,519
3,241
2,894


Malignant neoplasms (I.C.D. 140–209)
193
634
1,874
2,409
1,492


Cerebrovascular disease (I.C.D. 430–438)
49
150
570
1,236
1,777


Bronchitis, emphysema, asthma (I.C.D. 490–493)
19
107
486
875
637


Pneumonia (I.C.D. 480–486)
19
40
152
345
712


Females


Ischaemic heart disease (I.C.D. 410–414)
55
256
1,010
2,175
4,135


Cerebrovascular disease (I.C.D. 430–438)
48
205
540
1,524
3,787


Malignant neoplasms (I.C.D. 140–209).
209
674
1,324
1,719
1,802


Pneumonia (I.C.D. 480–486)
18
44
96
290
1,019


Other forms of heart disease (I.C.D. 420–429)
11
29
77
261
954

DEATHS DUE TO ALCOHOLISM AND ALCOHOLIC CIRRHOSIS OF LIVER IN SCOTLAND


Cause
All Ages
0-
5-
15-
25-


Males


Alcoholism (I.C.D. 303)
45
—
—
1
1


Cirrhosis of liver (alcoholic) (I.C.D. 571.0)
18
—
—
—
2


Females


Alcoholism (I.C.D. 303)
9
—
—
—
1


Cirrhosis of liver (alcoholic) (I.C.D. 571.0)
9
—
—
—
—


Cause
35-
45-
55-
65-
75


Males


Alcoholism (I.C.D. 303)
10
12
11
9
1


Cirrhosis of liver (alcoholic) (I.C.D. 571.0)
—
5
9
2
—


Females


Alcoholism (I.C.D. 303)
3
2
2
1
—


Cirrhosis of liver (alcoholic) (I.C.D. 571.0)
—
5
1
2
1

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of male patients in mental hospitals are there because of alcoholism; and how this figure has varied in the last 20 years.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Information is not available in this form. Of the total male admissions to mental hospitals and psychiatric units, about 20 per cent. in

of life and an unknown number do not seek treatment. I share his concern about the problem of alcoholism in Scotland, and I believe that the recent campaigns by the Scottish Health Education Unit show our concern.

Following is the information:

1961 and 28 per cent. in 1970 were for alcoholism; these include a high proportion of readmissions.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the scandalously high figures that he has given, there is something very immoral in the Tory Party accepting enormous sums of money from the brewers who put these people into mental institutions?


Will he make representations to his hon. Friend sitting near him that in no circumstances will the Tory Party soil its hands wth this filthy lucre?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have always been a strong temperance man. But I believe that if we were to approach the problem with the jaundiced view which he has expressed we would not get results. The Government are doing things in the right way. The Scottish Health Education Unit has been conducting a campaign aimed at educating the public. This, and not abuse and misrepresentation, will bring results.

Housing Aid Centres

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to promote the formation of housing aid centres; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: At my right hon. Friend's request, the Scottish Council of Social Service is examining the need for such centres and their relationship to the existing services provided by their Citizens Advice Bureaux and by local authorities. We are also in touch with other organisations which are active in work of this kind.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: As many of the services are those normally supplied by solicitors, surveyors and bank managers, has my hon. Friend taken advice from the professional bodies representing such people?

Mr. Younger: I have had informal discussions with solicitors as well as with the other bodies which I have mentioned, but my general objective is to find the most effective means of getting better access for the public to advice and help on how they can best fulfil their housing needs.

Mr. Small: Related to that question, would the Minister examine and restore the 4,000 cut in S.S.H.A. building programme, which would certainly be a more practical step in its application than some other ideas?

Mr. Younger: It would certainly have been so if there had been any such cut. But there has been no such cut, and I am glad to be able to say that to the hon. Gentleman.

Scotland West Industrial Promotion Group

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial or other support he is giving to the Scotland West Industrial Promotion Group; and if he will make a statement on its progress so far.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I warmly welcome the setting up of Scotland West and I wish it well. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman on 13th January, I think it right that the finance and other resources for regional efforts—of which Scotland West is one—should come from the regions concerned.—[Vol. 809, c. 58.]

Dr. Mabon: Undoubtedly that is a sailor's farewell. Does this mean that every regional promotion group in Scotland is to receive no money whatsoever from the Government directly? Is it a case that the total promotion of Scotland abroad will be £20,000, less than a penny a head? Is not this utterly deplorable in an area of Scotland which has had a series of closures—for instance, Plessey and many others—and now faces this deplorable decision not to allow Chevron to develop at Hunterston?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not understood what has been arranged with the Scottish Council. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development has been seeing regional and other promotional agencies to seek support, including financial support, for a campaign to promote Scotland as a whole. The initial response has been excellent. The Government have agreed to provide £20,000 a year as a contribution to the new national organisation, and that is double the amount that the previous Government were providing, which in any case was due to come to an end.

Hospitals (Ministers' Visit)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what hospitals he has visited officially in Scotland since 1st January, 1971.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have visited one hospital in an official capacity. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State


for Health and Education has made two official visits in the period.

Mr. Hunter: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but if he is unable to visit Dunfermline in the near future, would he ask the Under-Secretary responsible for the health services to come to Dunfermline and to see how badly we are in need of a new general hospital?

Mr. Campbell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will consider that. I will make inquiries, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me about any particular points he wishes to raise.

Mr. Steel: Would the Secretary of State also consider an invitation for himself or his Under-Secretary to visit Peel Hospital on the Border? Is he aware that there are growing protests in Scotland as hospital standards rise elsewhere—and rightly so—that a wartime wooden-hutted hospital is no longer adequate to serve the needs of the populations of the four Border Counties? If he or his colleagues could see it for themselves, they would receive a warm welcome.

Mr. Campbell: I will also consider that matter. I am aware of the conditions which have been described. I hope that the House will have noted the announcement I made last Friday about the reorganisation of the whole hospital service in Scotland.

School Leaving Age

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official representations he has received from education authorities about their capital allocation for the raising of the school leaving age; and what replies he has sent.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): Since my right hon. Friend increased the allocations of a number of education authorities for school building generally last December, representations involving accommodation for the raising of the school leaving age have been received in three cases. Discussions with the authorities concerned were arranged.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware of the voices in Scotland now urging him to leave out certain areas from the initial introduction of the raising of the school leaving age? Will he take this opportunity to state definitely that the school leaving age will be raised, on the Government's target, all over Scotland on the same day?

Mr. Taylor: That is a different Question from that which the hon. Gentleman asked about building. There is on the Order Paper a separate Question on the school leaving age, which I shall be very glad to answer later today.

Mr. MacArthur: Important as school buildings are, would my hon. Friend agree that the provision of an adequate number of teachers is even more important? Has he had any recent consultations with local authorities, in West Scotland particularly, where an especially severe shortage of secondary teachers is expected in 1973? Is he prepared to take further steps, if necessary, to overcome that shortage?

Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend rightly said, staffing is the main consideration. He will be aware, from the various announcements which have been made, that the position is showing some very encouraging improvement.

Mr. William Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give a firm assurance that the school-leaving age will be raised to 16 years as from 1972–73.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he now proposes to raise the school-leaving age to 16 years.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Yes, Sir. I do not anticipate any significant difficulties in carrying this policy into effect except in certain areas in the West of Scotland. I believe that the special measures announced to assist the areas of difficulty, including the increase in the number of designated posts, should help to remove inequalities of distribution.

Mr. Hannan: That statement will be welcomed by all of us on this side of the House, and I think by some hon.


Members opposite. Would it not be intolerable if the school-leaving age went up to 16 in England and Wales and not in Scotland? Though I understand the problems of the teachers, surely with the provision of the necessary extra accommodation and an increase in the number of graduates, the likelihood of success on this occasion is much greater than in 1947?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is correct in emphasising the importance of adequate teacher supply. All the recent indications have been very encouraging. It would be misleading not to say that we have a problem in the West of Scotland, one which we hope the measures announced so far will help to overcome before the date of raising the school-leaving age.

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the problems which faced the Labour Government 25 years ago were mountainous compared with the problems that face him today, yet that Government went ahead despite the difficulties and successfully raised the age to 15? Are he and his Government to hesitate now, on the eve of our entry into the Common Market? Will he ensure that there is not even a little part of Scotland where he is afraid to use all the influence and power of the Government, so that the age is successfully raised all over Scotland at the date of the change, which I assume he will announce to us?

Mr. Taylor: I have not yet been authorised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to answer Questions on the Common Market, so I will not deal with that point. The hon. Gentleman's important point was to relate what is to happen now to the situation when the school-leaving age was raised to 15. He will be aware that there were many serious practical problems then. It is certainly our intention to take all possible steps to make sure that raising the school-leaving age does not have the effect of reducing general education standards in any part of Scotland in any way.

Mr. Brewis: Did not the last Labour Government postpone raising the school-leaving age? Can my hon. Friend say how applications from graduates to enter the colleges of education are coming along?

Mr. Taylor: It is true that the raising of the school-leaving age was postponed by the previous Government for economic and other reasons. The number of teachers in the schools last January was over 1,000 up on the 1970 figure. The figures of graduates entering the colleges of education are also extremely encouraging. I hope to have some figures to give the House within a month or so.

Winter Works Programme (Old Schools)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce an educational winter works programme in order that old school toilets in Lanarkshire can be replaced; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Edward Taylor: As regards a winter works programme, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 5th May. Lanarkshire Education Authority is making progress with the replacement of school toilets under the normal school building programme.—[Vol. 816, c. 1359–62.]

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that what is required is not the usual, normal routine works programme, but a programme of a massive character? Does he realise that primary school toilets, such as those at Rochsolloch primary school, built in 1902, still cannot be replaced because of lack of money? Would he please do something about it.

Mr. Taylor: It would be wrong to give an answer on each individual school, but Lanarkshire is at present engaged on a programme of school toilet replacement amounting to £200,000. As for the future, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extra £4½ million of capital investment which the Government are making available for starts in 1972–73 which should enable authorities to make faster progress than at present.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we do not expect him to make a statement on every individual toilet, but in view of the derisory nature of last winter's work programme; the alarming unemployment figures, particularly among construction workers; the problem we shall face with the raising of the school


leaving age next year; and the fact that we are likely to have the bleakest summer in employment for years, would he not consider altering the terms so as to give us a summer works programme to deal with the situation?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we inherited a school building programme, and we have increased that programme by the special measures announced for primary schools. We shall shortly announce our 1973 allocations. The hon. Gentleman should await that announcement. In the few months we have been in office, we have a record to be proud of, since we have increased the programme which was announced.

Portobello Power Station (Conversion)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress regarding the proposal that Portobello power station be converted from coal to oil firing.

Mr. Younger: I met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress recently. They urged the Government not to allow conversion of the power station from coal to oil firing because this would have adverse effects on mining employment and morale.

Mr. Strang: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the repeated statements by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regarding concern for the number of unemployed in Scotland will be hollow indeed if he decides to put over another 1,000 families on dole next winter on the basis of the flimsy case which has been advocated for this oil conversion?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the Adjournment debate which took place last week, we have been at great pains to take views from all bodies concerned on the question whether this power station should be converted. I assure him that we are taking all these facts carefully into consideration.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House will receive with some satisfaction the fact that he has firmly stated that his mind is not made

up? However, is he further aware that this week the Scottish area of the National Union of Mineworkers voiced the great concern felt by miners, and that the situation could create a crisis of confidence in the mining industry? Will he act immediately in the interests of giving some confidence and heart to the mining industry by doing away with this proposition to convert to oil?

Mr. Younger: I can again confirm that no decision has been taken in this matter, and I was left in no doubt by the representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Mineworkers when I saw them that they felt that it is not in their interest this should be done.

Development Council for Lanarkshire

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused to meet a delegation from the Development Council for Lanarkshire.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As was explained in the reply to the Council, a meeting would not be appropriate at this stage because there is nothing more I could say at present on the matters raised.

Mr. Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Development Council for Lanarkshire consists of representatives from all the local authorities and Members of Parliament in the county and that the rate of unemployment in the North Lanarkshire area alone increased last month to 7·5 per cent., making it the second highest unemployment area in Scotland? Is he aware that his attitude to this responsible body makes it feel that the Government are not concerned to solve the problems faced by our country.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman only three weeks ago, in somewhat intemperate terms, was demanding that I should see a deputation from Caldercruix, but the terms were somewhat misplaced because, in confirmation of what I said to the House, I saw a deputation. I was acutely aware of the particular misfortune which has struck that relatively small community. However, when I am not in a position to say any more at a certain stage, it does not help busy people, Members of Parliament or local authorities to have a meeting of the kind suggested.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since the inception of this Development Council in 1961, this is the first time that a Government Minister has refused to meet a deputation—and at a time when the unemployment situation in the area is chronic, and indeed is escalating? Will he not reconsider his decision not to meet the Lanarkshire Development Council?

Mr. Campbell: What I have said is that it is not an appropriate moment to have that meeting now. It would inevitably mean two meetings. I have had correspondence with the Council, I have taken into account the views which they have expressed, and I am very much aware of them.

European Economic Community

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have made representations to him in respect of the fishing industry with regard to Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: To date, representations on this subject have been received from some 20 Scottish local authorities. The replies repeated the assurances that have already been given in this House.

Mr. Baker: Would my hon. Friend say how many local authorities were enthusiastic about the reply; and, secondly, would he say when the Government will clearly say that the minimum terms for the British inshore fishing industry embrace the retention of the 12, six and three-mile limits?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have had letters of thanks from those to whom we have written. At the same time, I must remind my hon. Friend that this is a delicate matter, and I repeat the assurance that we shall be negotiating it with the Six.

Mr. Strang: Would the Under-Secretary confirm the very important statement made by the Foreign Secretary at the Scottish Conservative Conference in Aberdeen that the Government will not take Britain into the E.E.C. without first obtaining some modification of the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman reads what my right hon. Friend says—and what my right hon. Friend says he means.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman share the optimism expressed by the Prime Minister on Monday, that in the forthcoming negotiations in Luxembourg this matter will be settled; and does he expect that it will be settled to the advantage of Scotland and the United Kingdon before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am afraid that I do not approach this matter in quite the same cavalier way as that in which the hon. Gentleman approaches it. The matter is far too important and far too vital for Scotland for that. I believe that anybody with experience of international negotiations would realise that it would be imprudent at this stage to reveal our hand.

Regional Planning (Co-ordination)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for co-ordinating regional planning in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Yes, Sir, though I am always looking for improvements. The Scottish Economic Planning Board co-ordinates the work of Government Departments and my officials maintain constant liaison with local planning authorities and their joint advisory committees.

Mr. Douglas: How have the sub-regional economic planning groups reacted to the visits proposed by the right hon. Gentleman's Department and others to Germany to attract West German industrialists to Scotland? Have the local groups been consulted on whether they want direct investment or indirect investment by German manufacturers in Scotland, and why cannot Scottish industrialists take up favourable investment opportunities?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot speak for all the bodies concerned without notice. But I have had no impression of any opposition to investment from abroad, particularly from Germany, where the Government have asked industry to expand abroad.

Mr. Dickson Mabon: Since the right hon. Gentleman has written to the chairman of the West Central Scotland Plan Steering Committee, do I take it, in the light of co-ordinating regional activities and his decision on Chevron, that the German industrialists are to be brought over to Hunterston to view the vacant land that the right hon. Gentleman has declined to zone for an oil refinery?

Mr. Campbell: The decision which I have taken is exactly similar to that taken by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) a year and a half ago on a proposal by Murco for an oil refinery nearby. For similar reasons, I have accepted the recommendation made very strongly by the reporter. I raised, probably before any other hon. Member, the importance of the deep-water facilities at Hunterston for the steel industry in Scotland, nearly two years ago. I initiated a debate on the subject in Supply time long before other hon. Members were saying anything about it; and I am particularly concerned about the importance of the area for the steel industry.

National Health Service (Charges)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had about the proposed increases in National Health Service charges.

Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend has received seven representations aaginst cost-related prescription charges in addition to those from bodies representative of the medical, dental and pharmaceutical professions.

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that objections to his proposal have been based on clinical grounds, which is a very nice way of covering up the real meaning of his proposals, which would be extremely damaging to the health of the people in Scotland? In view of the representations he has received, will he undertake to withdraw this grotesque and unacceptable policy?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right in that a variety of objections have been made for a variety of reasons. We shall give very careful consideration to the views of the professions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I met the representatives

of the doctors and the dentists last week to discuss their objections to cost-related prescription charges. We shall be meeting representatives of the pharmacists next month.

House Improvement Schemes (Publicity Campaign)

Mr. Mac Arthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to date by his Department's house improvement publicity campaign; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: The campaign, which was begun on 3rd May, has elicited a most encouraging initial response from members of the public, local authorities and others. Press and television advertising, local exhibitions, and other activities will continue throughout the summer.

Mr. MacArthur: Can my hon. Friend quantify his answer in any way? I realise the difficulty of doing so at this stage, but can he give any estimate of the number of houses in Scotland which could be improved in that way? Is his feeling that the early results of the campaign are extremely promising?

Mr. Younger: The early results are very encouraging. In the few weeks that the campaign has been going on we have already had 2,000 inquiries from members of the public, and 31 local authorities have said that they are willing to hold local improvement exhibitions. All the indications are that this is a most encouraging start towards what I hope will be a major break-through in providing more homes for people in Scotland.

Mr. David Steel: How many mobile exhibition units are there as part of the campaign?

Mr. Younger: We have some flexibility, in that there can be more than one at one time if they are relatively small, or they can be amalgamated to make a bigger exhibition display if necessary. If the hon. Gentleman has particular inquiries from his local authority, I shall be very glad to receive them.

Mr. Galbraith: Are the houses mainly for owner-occupation or for rent?

Mr. Younger: They cover all types of housing. The basic requirement is that


the house concerned should be improved to modern standards and then be able to provide a home for a family which would not otherwise have been provided.

Regional Employment Premium and Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received following the recent Budget concerning the net benefit to Scotland of the regional employment premium and the selective employment tax.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, Sir.

Mr. Brewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the halving of S.E.T. is very good news for Scotland? Could R.E.P., which has been quite popular in some quarters, in any case continue after 1974 under the regional policy of the E.E.C.?

Mr. Campbell: I am well aware of the great welcome in Scotland for the halving of S.E.T. in July. [Interruption.] There is no need for writing on that, or for the welcome of the total abolition within two years. I could not answer the question about R.E.P. and the E.E.C. regulations without notice, but I want to make it clear that we are committed to continuing it until September, 1974.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Scottish Development Department do a study of the effect of continuing the regional employment premium on the investment plans of multi-national companies?

Mr. Campbell: I will consider that but I am not sure what its relevance will be.

Mr. Buchan: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that, despite the apparent marginal effect of the halving of selective employment tax, it by no means compensates for the ending of the regional employment premium. This is especially serious in view of the destruction by the Government of the other incentives which should be going to Scotland. Has he made any estimate of the loss to Scotland incurred by the simultaneous phasing out of the regional employment premium and the introduction of the value-added tax?

Mr. Campbell: I do not know about the marginal effect in one respect, but I know of another—that the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is likely to become more marginal as a result of the abolition of selective employment tax. The package of incentives introduced by the Government is more flexible and more related to the creation of new jobs. A larger amount of incentives is flowing to the special development area in West Central Scotland than ever before.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Horticulture (Competition)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him about the problems of Scottish horticulturists arising from unfair competition from subsidised fuel prices enjoyed by the Dutch growers.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I understand that the fuel subsidies to Dutch growers have ceased.

Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to look at that statement again, because I do not think that it is entirely accurate? In view of the conversion to natural gas, the Dutch growers are getting subsidies and benefits of various kinds from their Government. Would not he agree that it is absurd that the Dutch growers should be able to sell tomatoes in Glasgow cheaper than the Scottish horticultural industry can sell them? Will he look at this matter again with greater sympathy?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The information I gave is of very recent date and I think that my hon. Friend will find it accurate. I assure him that if growers have evidence that foreign produce is being dumped on the United Kingdom market, they can be assured of a rapid hearing from the Government.

Misuse of Drugs (Edinburgh)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view


of the rise in drug taking and drug thefts in Edinburgh, he will call for reports from the police authorities about the work and strength of drug squads; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is for chief constables to determine how best to deploy their manpower but I know that they are devoting increasing resources to problems arising from the misuse of drugs.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my hon. Friend realise that the number of these offences in Edinburgh has doubled in the past year and that there is great concern in the city? Is he convinced that there are enough police resources, in manpower, equipment, intelligence work and everything else, to get rid of this appalling problem.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concern and I know that it is also shared by the Edinburgh police. I want to pay tribute to the work of the force and of its drug squad. So far as the force's establishment is concerned, we are prepared to give all the help we can in order to assist it to meet this very difficult problem.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the need to enlist to co-operation of the parents in any effective campaign against teenage drug taking? Will he consider a campaign to educate parents, in view of the education gap, in order to give them some knowledge of the danger of drug taking and also in the detection of what I understand to be the characteristic odour of cannabis?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree that the matter must be tackled on a wider front than police work alone. In many local authority areas, liaison committees have already been set up whereby educational and social workers come together with local medical officers and police officers. This wider approach is much the most effective one that we can follow.

Museums (Admission Charges)

Mr. Alexander Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will grant exemption from paying admission charges to museums for students, all pensioners and persons below 16 years of age.

Mr. Edward Taylor: The proposals contained in the White Paper "Future Policy for Museums and Galleries", which are still to be discussed with the Trustees of the National Institutions, include provision for exemptions for organised educational parties, library readers, and scholars and students on prearranged visits. No other exemptions for particular categories of visitor are proposed.

Mr. Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware, however, that the money to be raised by these charges is so low in total that it is not worth imposing the charges in the first place? Is he further aware of the detrimental effect the charges could have on students in their research projects? Is he further aware of the loss of culture which could otherwise have been obtained by the under-16 age group? Is he further aware of the loss of interest and recreational facilities to the pensioners in Scotland and elsewhere in Britain as a result of the charges? Will he reconsider the whole project and not introduce charges at all?

Mr. Taylor: The estimated income is not insignificant. It is, for Great Britain as a whole, £1,300,000, less 10 per cent. for administrative costs. The White Paper points out that for scholars and students prearranged visits should be allowable for exemption.

Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this attack on the old and the young is one of the meanest of all the mean measures produced by this meanest of all Governments? Is it not characteristic of the Government that they equate the arts with cash and call the man in charge of the arts the "Paymaster-General"?

Mr. Taylor: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is being quite ridiculous. The Government have a record of concern for the elderly of which we can be proud. When did the hon. Gentleman's Government raise pensions by £1 a week?

Local Government Reorganisation (Water Boards)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the statutory


water boards in Scotland about the forthcoming reform of local government as outlined in Command Paper No. 4583.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from statutory water boards in Scotland about the proposals for the reform of local government as stated in Command Paper No. 4583; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Younger: My right hon. Friend has asked the Scottish Water Advisory Committee to consider future arrangements for administering the water service, in the light of our White Paper. I understand that all water boards have been invited to submit evidence to the Committee, and the Fife and Kinross Water Board have sent my right hon. Friend a copy of their written evidence.

Dr. Mabon: Since we have heard today that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education has been gagged by the Prime Minister on matters concerning the Common Market, are we to take it that the Secretary of State is gagging the Water Advisory Committee by the narrow and restrictive remit he has given it? Is it not fair that the Committee should be entitled to make comments going wider than that remit? Since water is in public ownership in Scotland, should not the Committee be allowed to consider whether water should be nationally and not regionally organised?

Mr. Younger: No one in this Government has been gagged by anyone. That may be how things are operated in Labour Governments, but it is not the way things are done in this Government.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Water Advisory Committee has been asked to consider the future organisation of water services in the light of the reform of local government. It is open to the Committee to produce any recommendations it thinks fit, but I gather that all concerned have accepted the general proposition that the future organisation of water supplies should relate to the new functioning of regional government.

Technical Colleges

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for allocating more funds to provide

more technical college building in Scotland.

Mr. Edward Taylor: In my view the present education authority building programme is adequate to meet the demand for student places as expressed in proposals submitted by authorities.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the new Lauder Technical College in West Fife is not yet complete? Would he agree that to leave this college unfinished is not good for staff or students, who have to work in old buildings in other parts of my constituency? Can he not do something to speed up the next phase?

Mr. Taylor: I understand that the authority hopes to be ready to start this phase late in 1972 or early 1973. If the planning of the project proceeds accordingly, it will be considered for inclusion in the programme of starts for the year 1972–73.

Unemployment (Government Policies)

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from industrial organisations in Scotland about the effect of Government policies on the level of unemployment; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: During the past six months I have received representations from a number of industrial organisations referring to the general unemployment situation or the situations in particular areas.
Where appropriate, my replies have referred to the Government's regional policy measures and to the measures proposed in the Budget to improve economic growth.

Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the largest industrial organisations in Scotland, thanks to his policy, is the army of unemployed? Is he further aware that the unemployed yesterday regarded his disgraceful decision in turning down the Chevron development project as a meaningful gesture of his disregard of their needs? Is he also aware that the unemployed people in Scotland are fed up with his platitudes and want to know when he will pull his finger out and give us some decisive action?

Mr. Campbell: At the time that the Secretary of State in the last Labour Government was rejecting the Murco application, a year and a half ago, I was pressing him to take action which would have avoided the unemployment that we have today. As for the number of jobs, the oil refinery would have produced 300 jobs but against that would have to be offset jobs in agriculture and damage to the local tourist industry.

Mr. Galbraith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who are interested in the long-term welfare of Scotland are delighted that he has decided to keep clear of oil pollution in the important recreational area of Hunterston and that they deprecate most strongly the heartless use of the numbers of unemployed for purely party political reasons when it is the Labour Party which is responsible for that unemployment?

Mr. Campbell: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that even some hon. Members opposite have been coming to the same conclusion as I, that the steel industry is perhaps the most important consideration in this area. The jobs involved there could be over 12,000. Moreover, it has been said, and found, that a combination of a refinery and a steel works can produce some of the worst atmospheric pollution, and therefore a refinery might be prejudicial to the steel development.

Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman concede that the arguments he is using, relating to Murco and Chevron, are not valid? In terms of future industrial development in Scotland, would he give us a clear idea of the type of developments he will foster or assist in fostering at Hunterston? Is he aware that unless we get west central Scotland sorted out, the Scottish economy overall might be in jeopardy?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member seems to be unaware of the most important decisions taken by me as soon as possible after coming into office in planning questions on Hunterston, when I authorised, for planning purposes, an ore terminal and a deep-water port, paving the way for a steel works.

Coatbridge High School (Political Meeting)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Lanarkshire concerning the employment of a member of his force, on 24th April, at Coatbridge High School, for the purpose of forcibly ejecting persons from a political meeting addressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell); and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The chief constable has informed me that his officers were present at the meeting but that they did not forcibly eject any person.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the incident, involving uniformed men as well as plain clothes men, arose from the fact that one of the two gentlemen had in his lapel a badge with a slogan saying, "Kill the Bill", and that the hon. Gentleman's local Tory friends said that they wanted no anti-Government propaganda at that meeting? Is this not a denial of free speech, and since these chaps were unceremoniously turfed out, will he ask his local Tory association to give them an apology?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have looked closely into this and found out that the officers made it quite clear that it was no part of the duty of the police to remove persons from the hall but that the responsibility for such action must reside with the stewards. They made this position clear to everyone involved.

Land (Ownership)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a report on the present ownership of land in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No Sir.

Mr. Strang: Why not?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Because such an undertaking would not be justifiable.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his friends, the Scottish lairds, have waxed fat on the land of Scotland for generations and that by his refusal to institute an inquiry into


land ownership he is keeping the facts from the people of Scotland? In the interests of honest government, will he institute a survey of land ownership in Scotland?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should bear two points in mind. The first is that one of the largest lairds in Scotland is the State. The second is that the answer I have given is the same as that given by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) a short time ago.

M80 (Lanarkshire)

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the estimated starting date for work on the M80 motorway.

Mr. Younger: I cannot at present add to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 7th April.—[Vol. 815. c. 422.]

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware of the distress felt by the people of Stepps over the lack of a safe road through the village? Is he further aware that they would be willing to put up with temporary difficulties if they knew that there was a definite starting date for the motorway M80?

Mr. Younger: I entirely share the hon. Member's concern about road conditions in this village and for this reason I have authorised various traffic management measures, including the provision of pedestrian crossings and traffic lights and the removal of bollards. I have further invited Lanark County Council, as my agent, to consider the possibility of more extensive short-term improvements. As for the major reconstruction of the road, this must await consideration of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study by the highway authorities involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Members of Parliament (Pensions Increases)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether the pensions increases to public servants will be applied to those pensioners who were former Members of Parliament.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I said on this subject yesterday during the debate on the Second Reading of the Pensions (Increase) Bill.—[Vol. 818, c. 239–93.]

Mr. Lewis: May I first of all thank the Minister for that reply and apologise for the fact that I was not able to remain here yesterday, but I have read the report of the proceedings? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this reply is not satisfactory? Is he further aware that former Members of Parliament are the only pensioners who have been left out and that in some instances it has been for as long as 30 years? Does he appreciate that such Members received no pension at all until 1964 and that some, who have done 48 years' solid service, are being shabbily treated by all Governments? Does he realise that it has taken two years to announce the review body and that we have had to wait six months for the chairman to be appointed and are still waiting for the members of the Committee to be appointed? Does he appreciate that these are Members who have given a lifetime of service to their country and who are now dying off? Why cannot he table an Amendment to the existing Bill to give these people a decent pension?

Mr. Howell: I understand the hon. Member's strong feelings. As my hon. Friend said last night, it is for the Top Salaries Review Body to consider whether it wants to change the present structure. If it does, and the House agrees, the change can be included in the Bill under Clause 5(2). On the second part of the hon. Member's comments, I can tell him that the names of the members of the salary Review Body will be announced before the House rises.

Mr. John Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that, of all the major trade unions, only the Transport and General Workers' Union has not given a cost-of-living increase to its pensioners since 1945? Is he proposing to take any action on that?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, but I do not think it arises on this Question.

H. M. TROOPS, NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARMS)

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the nature of the orders concerning the use of firearms by Her Majesty's troops in Belfast.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): Fire may be opened by troops when it is judged necessary to do so to save life or when firearms have been or appear likely to be used against the security forces or persons whom it is their duty to protect. In this context a firearm includes such weapons as grenades, petrol bombs and gelignite.
Whenever practicable an oral warning, preferably by loud hailer, is given. There are, however, circumstances in which soldiers are empowered to fire without giving an oral warning; essentially when a warning is impracticable or when any delay could lead to death or serious injury for the soldier himself or people whom it is his duty to protect.
It is of course the requirement of the common law that when acting in support of the civil power a soldier shall use no more force than is necessary for the accomplishment of his immediate task.

Mr. McNamara: May I take this opportunity, I think on behalf of the whole House, to express our sympathy to the families of the people who have been tragically killed and injured in Northern Ireland, particularly to the family of Sergeant Willet, who acted yesterday in a most courageous way?
What the right hon. Gentleman has said is very different both in tenor and in substance from what was said yesterday by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who seemed to be more intent on unifying his own party than in bringing help and succour to the communities there. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if what the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said was correct, he conceded victory to the Provisionals, which none of us could want, and brought encouragement to people who want to see further bloodshed in Northern Ireland? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that British troops are not advised to fire warning shots?

Lord Balniel: I join in expressing sympathy to those who were hurt. In particular I pay tribute to Sergeant Willet of the 3rd Parachute Battalion, and Inspector Nurse of the R.U.C., whose brave action in shielding the by-standers and children undoubtedly saved their lives. In the case of Sergeant Willet, this was at the cost of his own life, and I offer the sincerest condolences of the whole House to his widow and relatives.
I understand that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has this afternoon made a clarifying statement to remove any possible ambiguities. The position of the two Governments is the same.
In answer to the third question, warning shots are not resorted to by the Army. When the Army opens fire it is at a target and is designed to kill.

Mr. George Thomson: We on this side of the House associate ourselves with the expressions of sympathy voiced by the Minister and my hon. Friend, to the widow and children of the sergeant who was killed, and join in the tributes to the superb courage shown by the sergeant.
Is the Minister aware that we join in supporting the appeal made today by the Northern Ireland Premier asking for the support of the entire community in stamping out terrorism and assuring those who give information that it will be treated in full secrecy.
Will the Minister be more explicit and tell us whether any extension has been authorised of the orders to British soldiers? Was the Northern Ireland Premier's statement yesterday in Stormont, that soldiers may fire on anyone acting suspiciously, true, or was it the kind of imprecision that is sometimes uttered by anyone in a Parliament who is under pressure at question time? Will the Minister remember that the responsibility for instruction to British troops rests firmly on Her Majesty's Government in this House, and that it is vital that Ministers should remain in control of this situation and should seek to remain in control, as was the case with my right hon. Friends when they carried these heavy responsibibilities?
Finally, will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in arresting the bomb thrower in this case and the other gunmen in similar incidents? Is he aware


that this is of overriding importance in dealing with this problem?

Lord Balniel: I am sure the whole House will echo the words of the right hon. Gentleman in appealing to the people of Northern Ireland to support the Forces. To use the words of the Commander of the 3rd Parachute Battalion, the act of the terrorist almost passes comprehension.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the right of soldiers to fire on people who are acting suspiciously. If there are strong grounds for a soldier believing that he or the people whom it is his duty to protect are in danger from a terrorist or from someone acting suspiciously, he will not wait for the terrorist to fire but will fire first.
The right hon. Gentleman asked where the responsibility lies for orders given to British troops. The responsibility, of course, rests on Her Majesty's Government in Westminster.

Captain Orr: Will my right hon. Friend answer two questions, the first one for better clarification, which everyone will agree is desirable. If a soldier on the ground saw someone whom he suspected was about to use gelignite to injure human life, would he be entitled, if there were no other option open to him, to fire and kill that person?
Secondly, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time when a child has been injured by being blown out of a pram and when Sergeant Willet has gallantly given his life to save an innocent family is no time for mischief-making semantics about the use of words?

Lord Balniel: In the circumstances outlined by my hon. and gallant Friend, the position would be that if the soldier had no other option in stopping that form of terrorist attack he would of course have the right to fire to kill.

Mr. Stallard: Is the Minister aware that while there will be universal support for the expressions of sympathy voiced by himself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), there is growing concern in this country about reports of recent incidents involving the use of British troops in Northern Ireland? Is he

further aware that there is a considerable body of opinion in this country, and amongst some hon. Members, that there can be no military solution to the problems of Northern Ireland? Will he therefore give urgent consideration to the constructive suggestions which have been put to him in the House and from outside the House to try to create an atmosphere in which the people who are concerned about this problem can come together and discuss a permanent political solution.

Lord Balniel: I am aware that there can be no military solution. All the military can do is create time and conditions in which an agreement can be worked out. I am not aware of the criticism which the hon. Gentleman makes about the conduct of the British troops. My impression is that overwhelmingly there is the utmost admiration for the restraint and conduct of the British troops which few armies in the world would show in these circumstances.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the conduct of the British troops in Northern Ireland. May I suggest to him that he should go back with the Home Secretary and once again discuss the plans and proposals which were discussed at the time of the resignation of the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?
Will he also convey to his colleagues that the battle against the mad bombers and those who are purveying bullets will be aided if the British Government will show less nervousness and throw their full weight behind the conception that Northern Ireland is a State in which every grievance that can be thought of that can be eradicated by legislation has been so eradicated, and that the people who are trying to run that country are, by and large, men of good will who have proved their good will over many hard years?

Lord Balniel: I am sure that the points made by my hon. Friend, worth while and important though they are, and which are outside my departmental responsibility, have been taken note of by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Miss Devlin: Will the noble Lord accept that there can be no ambiguity


about the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, particularly as he was here and had consultation with Ministers in this Government no later than last Monday and that, therefore, any disagreement between what he said and what is general Army policy cannot have arisen from confusion, but that it was on the part of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who has no right to speak on matters of defence, a declaration of an open season in Northern Ireland and an attempt to create an Aden or a Cyprus situation, which is no solution to the Northern Ireland problem?
Therefore, will the Minister give serious consideration to the fact that, as he accepts that there is no military solution to the problem of Northern Ireland and that the military cannot keep the peace and cannot catch one solitary bomber, he should take the Army out of Northern Ireland and that might help to secure the peace?

Lord Balniel: I am glad that the hon. Lady thinks that there was no ambiguity in the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Mr. Faulkner thought that there was possibly some ambiguity and it was for that reason that he made a statement this afternoon eliminating any possibility of ambiguity. I can assure the hon. Lady that the position of the two Governments is the same. The British Army will stay in Northern Ireland as long as it is required to maintain law and order and improve the position.

Mr. Strattom Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that all of us on this side of the House, and indeed hon. Members opposite, wish to join in the expressions of sympathy to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has given voice for the people injured in the murderous bomb attack yesterday?
Will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the question whether there is a need to change any of the instructions for guarding joint R.U.C.-Army stations?
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the statement by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland yesterday had been cleared with the security authorities

before it was made? Will my hon. Friend continue, as he has done today, to resist the attempts to tie the hands of the Army in dealing with the terrorists?

Lord Balniel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expression of sympathy, which I know is shared by the whole House, for those who were injured. I assure my hon. Friend that the hands of the Army are in no way tied. The orders under which they operate are those which they think are necessary for the task which they have to perform.
As to the guarding of R.U.C. stations, it has been decided that shared R.U.C.-Army stations will be guarded by the Army and entrances will be covered by fire. R.U.C. stations which are not shared are being advised on how best to protect and guard themselves.

IMMIGRATION (PASSPORT AND VOUCHER HOLDERS)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Government have now completed their review of the position of United Kingdom passport holders. We have had discussions with Governments in East Africa with a view to facilitating more orderly movement of United Kingdom passport holders to this country and reducing the waiting time for vouchers. Discussions with the Government of Uganda were interrupted by the change of Government there, but have been resumed.
The Government have decided to double the rate of entry of United Kingdom passport holders by the issue of 3,000, instead of 1,500, special vouchers a year for heads of households. This increase will take effect from 1st June. In addition, over and above this there will be a once-for-all allocation of 1,500 vouchers. These will be issued over the next six months.
The Government have also decided at the same time to reduce the number of Commonwealth citizens entering this coun Commonwealth citizens entering this country to take up employment. They intend to cut from 4,000 to about 2,000 the annual rate of admission of employment voucher holders. My hon. Friend


the Minister of State, Department of Employment, is today circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a Written Answer giving the changes in the voucher scheme to effect this reduction. In brief, no more category A vouchers will be issued to independent Commonwealth countries—other than Malta—for unskilled or semiskilled employment; and a reduction will be made in the issue of category B vouchers.
I believe that these steps provide the best attainable solution of a difficult human problem of conflicting rights and interests which has long given concern to both sides of the House.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Home Secretary one or two questions? First, have the discussions with the East African Governments led to agreement with them that they shall no longer bring pressure to bear upon British passport holders to leave especially Uganda and Kenya, or is this a unilateral action by the Government in the absence of getting agreement? Second, on a point of detail, will heads of households be allowed to be accompanied by their dependants? In view of the new Immigration Bill, this is clearly a point that might be called in question. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that this obvious common sense will be adopted.
Third, why is it necessary to reduce the number of B voucher holders entering this country, as they are specialists or technicians who have something to contribute to this country? Why is it necessary to reduce the number of these skilled men entering, some of whom are doctors or dentists, or have some other professional qualifications?
Finally, although I recognise that with the present level of unemployment in Britain people are not applying to come here in the same numbers, is it not rather derisory to reduce this trifling number of people who now wish to come to Britain in this way?

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling First, we have had discussions with Governments in East Africa, particularly with the Government of Kenya, and I think we have reached a common point of view on the way this problem should be handled. Second, dependants will come with heads of households.

The third and fourth points are related. The problem here, as the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, has always been the conflicting problem of giving access to more of these people—more access more quickly—without at the same time creating more tensions in community relations here. This has always been the problem which, for various reasons, the House has faced. This was the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's own legislation in 1968. I am following that principle.

Sir D. Renton: Whilst not dissenting from any part of my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask if he can give the House an idea of the total effect of these proposals taken together upon our immigration figures over a period of, say, 12 months in the near future?

Mr. Maudling: The broad effect should be that the total should not change appreciably, but we are recognising what I have always believed to be the truth—namely, that these people have a prior claim.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement about the East African United Kingdom passport holders will be warmly welcomed among the communities there, and not just for the annual increase but particularly because of the very sensible measure of the once-for-all allocation of 1,500 vouchers? I have in mind particularly the very severe social problems faced by these people, problems which I saw for myself only last week. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this part of his statement will be widely welcomed both there and by hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been pressing for this for some time, because it is a humanitarian step?

Mr. Maudling: I am very gratified to hear that point of view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he has studied this problem very closely.

Mr. Deedes: I accept that the cut in the issue of A vouchers will mean very little in India and Pakistan, but is my right hon. Friend aware that it will hit the Caribbean to some extent? Will it be possible to offer any differential in favour of the Caribbean?

Mr. Maudling: I will look into that question. My impression is that the effect on the Caribbean will be very small.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is very gratifying to those who for a considerable time have felt very ashamed of our policy in this regard? How will this ease the general burden of people coming from that source? As these people sacrificed their right to remain in their country by relying on a promise from this country which was later dishonoured, even if it means reducing even further the number of other immigrants coming here, should not these people be accorded priority above all others?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful. This is not an ideal solution. It is not a problem to which there is an ideal solution. It is the best solution that we can find. It will make a big, immediate contribution. It will prove that we really intend to carry out what we have said.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend say what has happened to Her Majesty's Government's exchanges with the Governments of India and Pakistan, whence the East African Asians originated? How many are those Commonwealth countries taking? Are they assuming any responsibility? Are they helping at all?

Mr. Maudling: We have been in close touch with the Indian Government in this matter, and they have been most helpful.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: While welcoming the statement about the East African United Kingdom passport holders, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there will be concern about this cut among other Commonwealth citizens? Is not it the case now that it may become more difficult in certain circumstances for a Commonwealth citizen to come to this country than it is for other aliens? Is not that a development against which many of us must set our faces, and will not it be a cause of concern amongst some of us about our approach to the Common Market?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot make any statement about aliens as opposed to Commonwealth citizens, but I hope that there will be a Government statement in the near future. We believe that Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth people coming here should be treated on the same principle.

Mr. Lane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement about United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa will be welcomed in this country, not least because of the valuable contribution to British life made by the overwhelming majority of them? On the point about reducing the waiting time, can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will do everything possible to cut down the administrative delays which have led to a great deal of individual hardship?

Mr. Maudling: Certainly we shall try to do that, and we shall try to give priority to the most pressing cases.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from one hon. Member who represents an area which contains considerable numbers of immigrants from many parts of the world that his reference to easing community tensions by cutting to 2,000 the number of vouchers from other parts of the Commonwealth is derisory and contemptible in the view of many people? While I welcome the other parts of his statement, may I put one specific question to him? What will be the impact of this cut on the quota system for Commonwealth immigration which has operated to date, and what impact will it have on the differential in favour of Malta which has operated since 1965?

Mr. Maudling: I said in my statement that the special position of Malta will be recognised and continued.

Mr. Freeson: How?

Mr. Maudling: Through the quota system. In general, I think that it was right in this very difficult and delicately balanced situation to provide more opportunity for our own United Kingdom passport holders while not at the same time increasing the flow of immigrants.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the employment voucher scheme is to be changed. Will he say how these vouchers, which are peculiar to Commonwealth citizens, are to be reallocated, when, under the Immigration Bill which is at present in Committee, they are to be ended and replaced by a completely different scheme?

Mr. Maudling: I was talking about the employment voucher situation as it is at the moment and the steps to be taken in present circumstances.

Mr. Evelyn King: My right hon. Friend said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that the Government of India had been most helpful. That is most encouraging. Will he elaborate on that and say in what way?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: How many?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot give an exact figure without notice. The Indian Government have recognised that it is desirable that people should want to return to India, and substantial numbers have been going back there.

Miss Lesior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is to be congratulated on the action that he is taking to alleviate some of the difficulties being experienced by British passport holders in East Africa? May I pursue the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and point out that the so-called principle behind the Immigration Bill at present before the House is that aliens and Commonwealth citizens should be put on exactly the same basis. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's statement about cutting down the number of other immigrants a contradiction of his own so-called principle?

Mr. Maudling: I am working within the present situation, so long as the employment voucher system continues. The measures that we are taking involving the elimination of most unskilled and semi-skilled people will in fact be consistent with the Bill which is now before a Standing Committee and, therefore, continuity will be preserved.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

WHITSUN ADJOURNMENT (MOTION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I was not able to give you longer notice of this point of order, but I wish to raise a matter which I think is within your control

concerning the tabling of the Motion for the Whitsun Adjournment.
Like me, Mr. Speaker, you have been a Member of this House for many years, and I think you will agree that it has been the custom and practice of all Governments, irrespective of party, to give a few days' notice on the Order Paper of the period of the recess in order to allow hon. Members who may wish to do so to put down Amendments. I think that that has always been the case in the past.
You will be aware that there has been no such notice put down up to now and that the earliest opportunity will be tomorrow, unless the Government intend to put it down for Friday, in which event they would be taking up private Members' time. As retrogressive as this Government are, I do not think that they would do that.
If the Government put down the Motion at the earliest opportunity, which is tomorrow, hon. Members will be unable to table Amendments, since they will not see the Order Paper until tomorrow, and that will mean that you will have to consider accepting manuscript Amendments.
I cannot see why the Government should not give hon. Members an opportunity to discuss the Adjournment of the House some days before the actual Adjournment, unless it is that they want to carry on this practice of "bouncing" the House of Commons with a view to preventing hon. Members from discussing the Motion. Very often hon. Members wish to raise important issues. If they know what the period of the recess is to be, they can have discussions through the usual channels, by which I mean the back benchers' usual channels with the Leader of the House.
May I ask whether it is possible to request the Leader of the House to do in future what all Governments have done in the past, and give hon. Members at least two or three days' notice by putting down the Motion on the Order Paper, rather than leaving it until the day before the Adjournment, as will be the case now, unless the Leader of the House intends to put it down for Friday?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must tell the


hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that on this occasion he is misinformed. If he examines all the precedents of all Governments, he will find that what is being done on this occasion is in line with them, with one exception. The exception is that the day chosen sometimes has been the day before the date of the Adjournment. It has usually been the practice of all Governments to decide, in the light of the business for the week, which day would be the most suitable. I have taken into account all the factors of the week's business. Looking at the business, I have decided that tomorrow is the most suitable day. Accordingly, the Motion will be put down tomorrow, entirely in accordance with established precedents.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank the Leader of the House for his kind and courteous reply and draw his attention to the most recent example, when, in respect of the Easter Recess, he put down the Motion a week before? It is not true to say that it is done the day before. It is done several days before, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to table Amendments which will be denied them now because they have no opportunity of knowing what the Motion is to contain.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry to take up the time of the House by arguing with the hon. Gentleman. However, he is confusing two things: the day when the debate is taken relative to the date of the recess and the day on which the Motion is put down. I put down the Motion for the Easter Recess some days before the recess because I felt that that fitted in best with the business of the House. I still put down the Motion on the same day relative to that day as I am doing on this occasion.

Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard four contributions. I think that they

were all out of order. This is not a point of order. It is a matter for the arrangement of the business of the House, and it is an abuse of Standing Orders to seek to raise it as a point of order.

HUMBER BRIDGE

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I crave your indulgence and that of the Leader of the House before he leaves?

Mr. Speaker: Is this a new point of order?

Mr. Johnson: It is a new point of order. I do not often bother you, Mr. Speaker, but I feel a sincere sense of grievance about my Question 52. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is staying. I hope that, with his usual courtesy, he will listen for less than a minute. My point of order concerns the Humber Bridge.
I understand that the Government have taken a decision. In fact, the Tory Leader of the Kingston upon Hull Council has stated what the bridge will cost and when the starting date will be. I have a Question down in this House of Commons. These things are being said in Hull and elsewhere. I ask the Leader of the House to make some comment as to when we shall have a statement, because both the Labour Government during the last six years and this Government have played cat and mouse with the people of Hull and North Humberside. I should like to know what the Government are doing about it.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I am in order to reply. I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know nothing of it. However, I shall make investigations. If he asks me tomorrow during Business Questions I shall give him the best answer that I can.

ELECTIONS (VALIDITY OF NOMINATION PAPERS)

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, relating to the validity of nomination papers for parliamentary and local elections.
I feel sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we in this country conduct our elections with tremendous tolerance, a great deal of fairness, and a very responsible administration of detail by people who carry out their tasks with an impartiality which is beyond reproach. Indeed, our electoral system is the envy of the world. That is why this House should ensure that anyone who dares to damage our good name in the world in this respect by committing an abuse of the law should have the full rigour of the law applied to him.
My attention has been directed to a case in Bradford during the recent municipal elections. Part of my constituency is in Bradford. In this area names have appeared on a nomination paper of people who have not given consent for their names to go on that paper.
I quote from the Bradford Telegraph and Argus of 3rd May. A gentleman called Atkinson said that he considered any suggestion of using his name on a nomination paper
as damn cheeky. I have definitely not signed Mr. Rimmington's nomination paper and will even swear to this in court. Mr. Rimmington does not even know me. Nobody from his party has ever been near my house. I want this thrashing out in court. I object to my name being used in this way.
This elector is highly indignant that his name should have been used to assert that the nomination of a candidate at the election was valid when he did not know that his name had been placed on the paper. He certainly did not sign the paper. This is a flagrant case of forging the name of an elector on the paper.
When this matter was reported to the returning officer in Bradford, it was apparently learned that his only duty concerning the nomination paper is to ensure that the person whose name appears on the paper lives at the said address, that

his name appears on the electoral roll, and that he has indeed a vote in that district. That is the end of the returning officer's responsibility.
This seems a poor state of affairs. It appears that here is a loophole concerning our electoral law. As I said, our electoral law is the envy of the world. I am convinced that it is a good electoral law and that we should ensure that abuses of this kind are not allowed.
I should make it perfectly clear that representatives of the three main political parties, election agents, and so on, are scrupulously careful to ensure that the law of the land in this respect is obeyed. There is no criticism of the representatives of those parties.
The case to which I have referred in Bradford is outside the three main political parties. It is one of a group of candidates who are prepared to use the worst prejudices of people to stir racial intolerance and to seriously disturb racial harmony. They are people who have little or no regard for our election laws, who are prepared to use our democratic procedures and systems for their own nasty ends, but to abuse them when it suits them to do so. I believe that these people must be made to conform to the laws to which hon. Members on both sides prescribe and by which I am sure we are all anxious to abide in fighting elections.
My Bill seeks to amend the regulations to ensure that this will not happen again by giving the returning officer greater authority to check the identity of anyone whose name appears upon a nomination paper if there is any doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Torney, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Walter Johnson, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Harper, Mr. Stallard, Mr. Jeffrey Thomas, Mr. Milne and Mr. Hardy.

ELECTIONS (VALIDITY OF NOMINATION PAPERS)

Bill to amend the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1949 relating to the validity of nomination papers for parliamentary and local elections, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 18th June and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

RADIO BROADCASTING (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to move the Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, I should inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

4.9 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No. 4636).
The White Paper proposes something less than a revolution for British broadcasting. It can be argued that it is indeed less important for broadcasting than the action which we have already taken to restore the finances of the B.B.C. and of I.T.V. to a firmer footing. There are probably larger decisions which will have to be taken in the course of this Parliament about the future of broadcasting in the post-1976 period after the expiry of the B.B.C. Charter and the I.T.A. licence. Nonetheless, the proposals contained in the White Paper are a logical and, perhaps, overdue development of our mixed system of broadcasting and represent a considerable opportunity for improvement and diversification in the services of sound radio.
Any set of proposals from the Government is open to criticism from one or two directions. It can be said that too much has been decided in too great detail by the Government and that too little is left for public discussion and participation. Or else it can be said that the proposals are too imprecise and vague, and that they ought to have been worked out in greater detail before being put forward for public discussion. This White Paper has had its share of criticism from both directions, so perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that a fair balance has been struck.
The White Paper describes in clear outline the service that is proposed. At the same time, as I have made plain, it is the Government's intention carefully to consider the views expressed upon the White Paper before proceeding to legislation. I hope particularly in this debate

to hear views about matters, such as news provision, which have been felt open.
I welcome the debate, too, as the occasion when we shall, presumably, have the proposals of the Opposition. The only Opposition contribution to the discussion about the future of radio so far has come from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). He recognised very fairly in his New Statesman article in July of last year that a purely negative attitude from the Opposition would not do on this occasion, that it would be ridiculous to go through the performance of the early fifties about commercial television all over again, on the one hand arguing for a monopoly and opposing a commercial competitor, and then later welcoming it. A repeat performance of that simply would not be sufficient on this occasion.
Equally, it would not, I am sure, be the intention of the Opposition simply to argue that more services ought to be put on by the B.B.C. with the frequencies that are available, without admitting that if that were to happen an increase in the B.B.C. licence fee would be inevitable. Therefore, as there is an Amendment to the Motion, one looks forward to the alternatives which the Opposition are to put forward for a commercial service.
The plan advanced in the New Statesman article by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was that Radio 1 and the B.B.C. local radio stations should be taken away from the B.B.C. and given to a new corporation, to be financed largely by advertising. I shall return to that proposal. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing whether it is that plan which the Opposition have adopted.
There will, I am sure, be a wide measure of agreement in the House that an alternative radio service, in competition with the B.B.C., is highly desirable. The existence of commercial television is, after all, no longer a matter of controversy between the parties in this country. At the opening of Yorkshire Television in 1968 the then Prime Minister declared that
Britain's two television services were the envy and objective of broadcasting authorities everywhere.
It was a remarkable speech. In it the right hon. Gentleman gave the clear


impression that, among the almost sacred things of life, he rated commercial television in roughly the same category as motherhood.
If I may give the House one or two extracts from that speech, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Britain is perhaps the only country in the world which could have achieved, because of its democratic sophistication, a national television service based on two diametrically opposed philosophies …
Many who foresaw disaster and predicted a widening gap between puritanical paternalism on the one hand and an indulgent, not to say permissive, avuncularism on the other, have seen instead an inter-action or an inter-reaction which has benefited and broadened the philosophies of both. The very existence of a mass audience stimulated by independent television prevents the withdrawal of the B.B.C. into a cloistered retreat. The very attractions of esoteric programmes put out by the B.B.C. for minority audiences … have forced I.T.A. to cater for similar minorities.
Perhaps not all hon. Members would see commercial television in quite such radiant terms as the Leader of the Opposition. There may, here and there, be a reservation about the existing structure of our television service but, nonetheless, there are, I am sure, very few who would want to restore the monopoly in television.
There are some advocates of commercial broadcasting who argue that if the B.B.C. had never been brought into existence, commercial television alone—and commercial radio presumably—could have catered as effectively for minorities and achieved just as high standards. 1, for one, do not happen to believe that. On the other hand, there are a few at the B.B.C. who can still be heard to argue that the striking improvement which occurred in B.B.C. television after the introduction of I.T.V. would have occurred anyway. Personally, I find that equally hard to believe.
Having worked for the B.B.C. in the mid 'fifties, in the period immediately after commercial television started, I have not the least doubt about the beneficial effect of competition upon the Corporation. It became more outward looking, more adventurous, less self-satisfied, less bureaucratic; enterprise and creativity were to an even greater extent valued and encouraged.
I should not have thought that one needed to labour the advantages of competition

in broadcasting, and those who accept the value of having more than one source of programmes in television—let alone more than one source of news and influence in newspapers, more than one proprietor for cinemas, theatres and other media of entertainment—will presumably accept that there ought to be competition, that there ought to be more than one source of programmes in radio.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Gentleman appears to be equating opposition to monopoly with commercialism. Surely it is possible to envisage competition without necessarily envisaging commercial competition? The case that he has to make is not against monopoly, but for commercialism.

Mr. Chataway: Indeed, and I shall be interested to hear it argued that there would be some other way of satisfactorily financing an alternative. Perhaps it would be by means of a greatly increased licence fee, part of which would be given to an alternative service. The only point I make is that, as I understand it, the existence of commercial television—the existence of an alternative that is commercial, and financed by advertising on television—is no longer a matter of controversy between the parties.
I referred to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition appears to have a passionate belief in that system of broadcasting for television. The main argument that is deployed against commercial radio—and perhaps this touches on the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind—is the generalised charge that it will lower standards. It is a theme on which some delightfully bizarre nonsense has been circulated. The vision that is conjured up is one of the British people, now subject to the benign improving influence of B.B.C. radio, being suborned by evil commercial operators who will lure them away to the depravities of popular entertainment.
It is a picture which has given rise—I must be careful not be unkind to some who spoke during the debate in another place—to some splendid denouncements by people who, one suspects, are not altogether familiar with the programmes to which the majority of the radio audience listen at the moment. I think that it may be helpful,


therefore, to pause for a moment to consider what part of the existing radio audience could be held to be most at risk from the introduction of commercial radio. The radio audience now divides into the following proportions, according to the B.B.C.'s last annual report: 45 per cent. listen to Radio 1, 35 per cent. to Radio 2, 2 per cent. to Radio 3 and 18 per cent. to Radio 4.
What is the main source of anxiety about competition? Is it the effect which it might have upon Radio 1, which is devoted almost exclusively to pop music? Is it a fear that the cultural standards of the "Jimmy Young Show" will be undermined, or that the disc jockeys whom the B.B.C. brought ashore from the pirate ships will be unnerved by having to face some competition again?

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Mr. Phillip Whitehead(Derby, North) rose——

Mr. Chataway: I do not want to detain the House too long. I hope to have the opportunity of winding up, so, if I am not to bore the House intolerably, I do not want to give way too much.
The competition against Radio 1 can be competition only for a part of the day. The commercial stations will not be able to put out non-stop pop even if they want to, since they will not secure from the Musicians' Union and other parties concerned a 100 per cent. needle time agreement. The B.B.C. can average out its allocation of needle time to produce pop music for most of the time that Radio 1 transmits.
The Musicians' Union has made it clear to me in a recent letter that it has no intention of trying to frustrate the introducion of commercial radio or its effective working, but it will wish to see considerable opportunities for live music provided in return for a needle time agreement.
Does anyone seriously suggest that the pop music which the commercial stations will be able to broadcast for some part of the day will lower the standards of Radio 1 or deprave that almost half of the radio audience which is now tuned to Radio 1? I do not find among those who I think know about pop music any unanimity of view that Radio 1 is of such a uniquely high standard that there is no place for an alternative.
Is there any more serious argument for suggesting that competition could have a harmful effect on Radio 2 and the 35 per cent. of the audience which it attracts? Does anyone believe that the Palm Court Orchestra or Mr. Eric Robinson will play any less sweetly because there may be music of a similar kind for part of the day on an alternative channel?
Even more unlikely, perhaps, is the idea that the new service could harm Radio 3 and the 2 per cent. of the audience who listen to it—that they would be likely to be lured away by commercial radio and that the B.B.C. would lower its sights with Radio 3. One has only to pose these questions to realise how silly are some of the suggestions that allowing people a choice will necessarily lead to lower standards.
There is, of course, Radio 4. In its treatment of news, the news service will certainly compete with Radio 4. Here, I should have thought that all the experience of television suggests that competition will be unquestionably beneficial in the news field.
For example—I shall not carry the whole House with me in this—I am an admirer of the World at One programme and its numerous offspring. But it seems that the development of more personalised current affairs programmes of this kind accentuate the need for an alternative. One can have a high regard for Mr. William Hardcastle without necessarily believing that the public interest demands that he should have a monopoly of current affairs coverage in peak daytime hours.
News, local and national, is bound to be important in the news service, because news is a larger ingredient in radio than it is in television. The White Paper sets out three alternative means of providing a national and international news service for commercial radio. There are some attractions in each of the three proposals.
Independent Television News, with its high reputation, could be expected to provide a very good service, but it is difficult to envisage that the radio companies could become part owners of I.T.N. alongside the television contractors, so there might be difficulties—I do not say that there would be—if I.T.N., owned by the television contractors, were supplying news to radio, which would to some extent be a competitor.
The alternative concept of an independent radio news jointly owned by the radio companies, operating on the same principle as I.T.N. and working in close conjunction with it, has much to commend it. It is also possible that an I.R.N. or an I.T.N. could also supply an "all-news" service in London, and perhaps in one or two other major centres of population, thus earning revenue directly and perhaps being to some large extent self-financing.
Many people have been impressed by the development over recent years of "all-news" stations in a number of American cities. A big demand has been shown to exist there for a news service to which one can turn at any time. In New York, Washington, Los Angeles and many other major cities there are today successful "all-news" stations providing a very high standard of service. Here in Britain, too, there is interest in an "all-news" station on the part of some who might be qualified to run a high-level operation.
I should welcome views about the relative merits of these three alternatives, and I have certainly reached no conclusion as to which might be preferable. But I believe that it is right that commercial radio should by one of these methods aim at a good central service of international and national news—and that means, at least at the outset, one central news service, as in television, taken by all the companies. Only in that way can sufficient revenues be generated.
I turn now to the general structure proposed in the White Paper. Some who accept the case for competition doubt whether it should come from local stations. Some have suggested that there will not be the resources to finance anything like 60 stations. Others, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) have argued that 60 is too few and that there should be an opportunity for many more to cater for smaller communities. Others argue strongly for a national service in addition to the local stations.
But I am sure that it is right to base the service upon local stations. This is, of course, to follow the pattern of commercial television. Many of the commercial television stations have served their regions with distinction. The difficulty which is arising over the redrawing of the

boundary between Yorkshire Television and Anglia Television as a result of the changeover to u.h.f. has brought home to many the regional loyalty which has been generated by some of the regional television stations.
Hon. Members in the transmission area of Yorkshire or Anglia—whichever side of the argument they have taken and whichever part of the House they sit in—have left me, and the Authority too, I am sure, in no doubt about the strength of feeling which now exists in their constituencies about any proposal to withdraw or change the local I.T.V. service. I have no doubt that commercial radio will engender the same loyalties in its localities as some commercial television services have succeeded in doing within their regions.
There will, of course, in radio be much greater disparities in the size of area covered than there are in television, and 50 per cent. or so of the United Kingdom population will probably be covered by the first 20 commercial radio stations; those in the major centres of population will cover areas with a population ranging from, say, 300,000 to 8 million or more in London. There can be very few doubts about the viability of these stations, which, of course, will cover much the greater part of the area proposed.
Indeed, as the White Paper explains, the stations serving the largest centres of population will almost certainly generate revenue considerably greater than the expenditure required by their immediate programming needs, and the contracts that are negotiated between the authority and the programme companies must obviously take this fact into account. We want to see good profits being made and able people attracted into radio, but we do not want to see undeserved excessive profits; the contracts must, therefore, be designed to achieve those ends.
I cannot foretell how many stations outside the conurbations will prove to be commercially viable. This will depend on the services that they provide; in other words, on their success. It may be that some of the smaller centres of population can best be served by satellite stations which would originate their own programmes for only a small part of the day, otherwise relaying programmes from a nearby centre of population.
There is room for up to 60 stations—it is impossible to say that 60 will prove to be viable—and that would involve going down to populations of under 150,000. In my view, this is at this stage the smallest area which could reasonably be expected to sustain a worthwhile service, but perhaps in future, when the spread of v.h.f. sets no longer requires duplication on the medium frequency, the opportunity will occur for more stations, if the revenue was forthcoming.
I come to the proposals which were advanced by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. Arguing, in the article to which I referred, that radio was too important to be left in the hands of the B.B.C., he was anxious, as I am, to set up an alternative commercial system.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to deal with the attack that has been made on his proposals from these benches before dealing with the remarks of my right hon. Friend? In other words, if he has completed his comments on the White Paper, I find his speech astonishing.

Mr. Chataway: As a serious proposal was advanced by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who a year ago was the official Opposition spokesman on these matters, I thought it would be discourteous of me not to pay attention to what he said. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have not completed my comments about the White Paper, though if he has specific questions to ask I trust that he will do so, if he has the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I will do my best to answer his queries and comment on his views.
There are, as the White Paper suggests, a number of strong arguments for entrusting the Independent Television Authority, renamed, with the task of supervising radio, and in the White Paper those advantages are spelt out.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman indicated that he had completed that part of his speech dealing with the White Paper and was intending to come to other arguments. Is this so?

Mr. Chataway: No.

Mr. Buchan: If so, I want him to know that he has not sufficiently explained the White Paper.

Mr. Chataway: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will, if he has an opportunity to speak in the debate, state his views. I do not want to detain the House for too long, though I have a good deal more to say about the White Paper. I was intending to allude in the process, although my doing so may be painful to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, to some proposals that have been made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, who was at the time the Opposition spokesman on these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman wanted to take away the local stations from the B.B.C., together with Radio-1. They were suggestions which were carefully argued and which were carefully considered by me. It seems, however, that there is a place for both a network of commercial local stations and the B.B.C. local stations. The commercial service must, of necessity, appeal—I use the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used about commercial television—to a "mass audience".
The principal competitors of the new commercial service must, of course, be Radios-1, 2 and 4, to which all but a fraction of the existing radio audiences now listen. If it can give local information to such a mass audience and involve that mass audience to a greater extent in the local community, the commercial service will have fulfilled an extremely valuable social function.
It was represented to me very forcibly by those interested in B.B.C. local radio that commercial radio would not be able to cater to minorities, particularly at peak hours, in the way that the B.B.C. stations, operating on a set-up of five channels, are able to do. Their audiences may as yet be small, but there is little doubt that the B.B.C. stations have put out fare which will be much appreciated by the wide variety of minorities to whom they have sought to appeal.

Mr. John Gorst: Is it accepted that B.B.C. local stations should not be provided to cover minorities in Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales—and, indeed, in Cornwall, which also


seems to regard itself as somewhat separate? If so, why?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend may recall that there are regional versions of Radio-4 prevailing in those areas. It has been represented that Scotland and Wales would prefer to have the frequencies used for the national version of Radio-4 rather than have B.B.C. local stations.
I hope the House as a whole will agree that there is room for both services. I have been able to agree with the B.B.C. the outline arrangements which will, in due course, provide medium frequency back-up for the B.B.C. stations. It will be necessary to apply for the use of frequencies allocated to other countries to supplement the medium frequencies we have available in this country, and this cannot be a quick operation. International negotiations are involved.
The siting of the independent stations will need to be considered and a frequency plan will have to be drawn up that caters for both the commercial stations and the B.B.C. I hope that the whole process will be completed in time for the B.B.C. local stations to have their medium frequencies at least by the time the commercial service is starting to go on the air.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's idea of, so to speak, transferring Radio-1 to the commercial side of the road, there is, of course, much to be said for having a national commercial channel in addition to the network of local stations. We decided against it principally because the national channel, which would probably have attracted more revenue than the local stations, would have been a direct competitor for advertising with the national Press. It might, at a difficult time in Fleet Street, have had a harmful effect on national newspapers.
The effect of the local network alone on the provincial and local Press is likely to be much more slight. It is, I believe, right to carry out the pledge which we gave in our election manifesto to give these Press interests an opportunity to participate in their local radio stations. By an accident of our broadcasting history, they have up to now been protected from competition from radio. When, by Government action, one changes this situation, it seems right to

give these highly-valued newspapers a degree of priority in the new radio set-up. I have no doubt also that they can make a great contribution to the development of the new service. I am sure that no efficient newspaper has much to fear from commercial radio. Nor does the Newspaper Society, with which I have been in close consultation, take the view that they will be bowled over by commercial radio.
It is generally estimated, for one thing, that the total revenue of commercial radio is unlikely to exceed £10 million. That compares with over £100 million spent on television; about £112 million spent on the local Press; a total national advertising expenditure of nearly £550 million. Much of that £10 million will be drawn from money spent on "point of sale" material and the like. A good deal of it will be new advertising expenditure, because what radio will do will be to give new marketing opportunities to the small and medium sized firm which cannot afford to advertise on television.
Such evidence as there is suggests that local newspayers may positively benefit from commercial radio. Radio and the local Press are held in many other countries to be commercially complementary. At their peak, the pirates were drawing about £2] million annually in advertising revenue. I have only come across one newspaper which claims to have even noticed the effect on its advertising revenue. The Isle of Man is the one place in the British Isles where radio is financed by advertising. Since it started in 1964, the circulation of the local Press has increased by 50 per cent. and its advertising revenue has steadily improved.
There is no doubt that competition in radio will be welcomed by the public—every poll taken on the subject suggests so—and particularly welcomed by young people. There is, I am sure, plenty of room for improvement and development in radio, and room also for expanding the radio audiences. Our mixed system of television, so much lauded by the Leader of the Opposition, has achieved about the highest figures for penetration of television sets in the world. Viewing figures during the hours of general television programming are somewhat higher than in North America. All this is an indication that, whatever other criticisms


one might wish to make, our television service must be admitted to be pretty efficient in meeting the demands of the viewing public in putting out programmes which people want to watch.
The position in radio looks a little different. The 25 per cent. that was suddenly added to the listening audience by the pirates has vanished again. In radio, the average person in this country listens for just over eight hours a week. In America the comparable figure is 17 hours. In part, this is accounted for by a greater number of cars in the United States, and by the five hours of average car listening a week there. I certainly would not want to exchange our radio service wholesale, even as it is, for the United States radio set-up, though the range of services given in the majority of American cities is vastly better than the popular conception of it here.
One of the reasons why there is apparently a listening figure in the United States of double that of ours, is that radio in America is more useful than radio here. Radio is a quick and flexible medium which people want to use today for some quite utilitarian purpose: to get all sorts of information that they need; to hear about the state of traffic; the sale at the store in town; the price of goods; the length of the queue outside the football stadium, and the main that has burst in the high street. There is no reason why British radio too should not have helicopters directing motorists home by the most trouble-free route.
I make no criticism of the B.B.C. It is an organisation that is far from perfect, but I have always regarded it as the best broadcasting organisation in the world, and that applies to radio and to television. I should certainly not make any proposal which I thought would endanger the B.B.C.
It would be odd, though, if one organisation in radio, with no outside criterion by which to measure itself, were able to react as successfully and efficiently to changing needs as the two organisations in television. It is not surprising that those in B.B.C. radio, unable to justify new developments by pointing to the enterprise of a competitor, have sometimes complained of being

treated like "the poor relations" of television.
In other countries radio is staging quite a come-back. The same could happen here. I have no doubt that the new IBA stations proposed in the White Paper can contribute to that, and I have no doubt that the fairly modest degree of competition with which the B.B.C. will shortly be faced will do the Corporation nothing but good.
I commend the White Paper to the House.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
disapproves of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for commercial radio as set out in the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No 4636).
I begin by apologising to the right hon. Gentleman for missing what I believe to have been the first 30 seconds of his speech. I assure him and the House that for once it was not my fault. The cab that I was in was unfortunately involved in what one would call an "incident" at this stage, which delayed me for some time.
Apart from the first 30 seconds of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which I did not hear, the part that I did hear seemed to be trivial and below the level that this subject demands. The right hon. Gentleman was asked some specific questions by two of my hon. Friends, particularly about the degree of control which is to be exercised by the Independent Broadcasting Authority over the individual programme companies. This is a subject which the right hon. Gentleman will know has caused a great deal of concern, not only in the House but in the Press and in other informed circles. But the right hon. Gentleman chose not to deal with that point. I trust, therefore, that he will take note of the fact that we on this side of the House want from him and from the Government some details of the type of control that they envisage that the I.B.A. will exercise over the individual programme companies, the way in which that control will be enforced, what sanctions it is envisaged that the I.B.A. shall have in order to


enforce its standards, and, finally, what guidance the Government propose to give to the I.B.A. so as to maintain what the right hon. Gentleman professes to believe in; namely, high standards in broadcasting.
When he winds up the debate, if the right hon. Gentleman chooses not to answer those questions, which are not put in any carping spirit but in a genuine attempt to try to clarify some parts of his White Paper which are vague and imprecise, I fear that the House and the country can only draw the obvious conclusions.
In many ways this is a most extraordinary Motion. After all, it is the Government's White Paper. It is not a document which is put before the House or the country for the purpose of general discussion. It is not a Green Paper. It is not even—as one noble Lord described it in another place recently—a White Paper with green edges. From time to time during the last six months, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we on this side of the House have been pressing him specifically to produce a Green Paper. Indeed, I remember asking him at Question Time specifically whether he would produce a Green Paper, saying that if he wanted to produce it on white paper, let it be a White Paper, but it should be clearly understood that they were to be proposals for general discussion and were not to be firm and definite proposals by the Government for the implementation of their policy.
The right hon. Gentleman refused. He said that the Government would do it in the usual way, and that when the Government had made up their minds they would put their proposals to the House of Commons in the form of a White Paper.
There has been a slight change in the position. In another place the other day Lord Eccles, in a rather elegant and expansive way, said that this matter is not
… to be decided on some dogmatic position.
Lord Denham, in winding up for the Government in the other place, said that
a White Paper such as this is designed as a talking point …".—OFFICIAL REPORT House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; c. 464–505.]
We are entitled to ask the Government whether the White Paper is designed to

be a talking point around which the debate shall rage—if one can use that expression with the House as full as it is at the moment—or is meant to be a set of firm proposals by the Government on the introduction of commercial radio into this country and for the implementation of what we on this side of the House believe to be a foolish pre-election pledge. Up to this moment we must, and indeed do, treat these as firm proposals by the Government. Are they so or not?

Mr. Chataway: This, alas, was the part of my speech that the hon. and learned Gentleman missed. What I said at Question Time was that the Government would put forward proposals in a White Paper and would then take a very careful note of whatever views were expressed on them. The point I made in my introduction was that, whereas I thought we should be criticised for putting in too much detail, or too much decision or too little, we would take very careful note of whatever views were advanced on matters deliberately left open or the propositions in the White Paper.

Mr. Richard: I heard that part of the speech and, even though the right hon. Gentleman has repeated it, it does not shake me in the views I have just expressed. I am asking whether these are firm proposals by the Government? Is this the structure of commercial radio which the Government wish to see introduced, or is it merely a set of proposals which the Government are putting before the country for general discussion? If the answer is the latter, I suspect he may find that some of his hon. Friends may not be in total agreement with the Government Front Bench. I hesitate to anticipate what will be said by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) but, judging by past experience of the hon. Member, I suspect that his views on the White Paper will not be wholly in agreement with those of the right hon. Gentleman. But, until the Government are prepared to say that their minds are open about the future structure of commercial radio, we must take this White Paper for what it is; namely, as a document which incorporates the Government's proposals. Therefore, we shall divide the House against it.
It is extraordinary that when the right hon. Gentleman produces a White Paper


of this nature setting out these matters for discussion, and when he has listened to everybody's views and taken notice of none of them, in the way Governments usually do, he then puts before the House not a proposal to approve the proposals in the White Paper but the most pathetic of all motions by a Government—a Motion which merely asks the House to take note of the White Paper.

Mr. Chataway: It is normal.

Mr. Richard: It is not normal, when the Government have gone through a period of gestation almost as long as the proverbial elephant and have laboured to produce a document which is supposed to be the basis for the introduction of commercial radio, to put this somewhat pathetic Motion on the Order Paper asking the House to take note. This is a ludicrous situation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the attitude of the Labour Party? I will tell him, though he should know all about our proposals on local radio because we have spelt them out in considerable detail. We would have continued with the proposal to extend B.B.C. local radio. That was our policy when in Government and it would have been our policy had we been returned to office at the last election. We do not approach this subject rigidly or dogmatically. At this stage our minds are open on the future structure of broadcasting; and so they have to be.

Mr. Chataway: Ah.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman says "Ah". Of course they have to be, since the charter comes up for renewal in 1976, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.
The right hon. Gentleman also knows that the Labour Government set up a committee under Lord Annan whose task was to look at the future pattern of broadcasting. It was a most hasty and ill-considered move that when the Conservative Government came into office the right hon. Gentleman decided to abolish that committee. In other words, he decided to do away with any overall national look at the future pattern and structure of broadcasting in Britain. We condemned him for it at the time. We said that the Government would regret that decision. I believe that the right hon.

Gentleman deep down, though he cannot admit it, now regrets that there is no body in existence at this stage which is capable of looking at the future pattern and structure of the broadcasting services. We believe that this needs to be done. Therefore, we would like to see a major committee of inquiry established to look at the whole pattern and shape of future broadcasting in this country.
One of the main reasons, why we on this side of the House are opposed to the White Paper is that we feel that by introducing this form of commercial radio at this particular time the right hon. Gentleman is closing one option which should remain open until after 1976. It may well be that at that time various other options may have to be considered, but until then we would condemn any closing of such a massive option by the introduction of local commercial radio in this form. We regard this decision as hasty and ill-considered. If the Labour Party is returned to Government at the next election and this structure is still in being, we should view it with the gravest misgivings. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that if I have anything to do with the matter it will be subjected to the most searching examination.
The right hon. Gentleman at one stage said that it was his wish to safeguard the existing services of the B.B.C., and he went on to say something about v.h.f. and m.f. I hope he will this evening be able to give one undertaking which his noble Friend in another place was unable to give. Although the noble Lord was asked specifically in the other place whether the B.B.C. could have its medium-wave back-up without waiting for the introduction of commercial radio, he said:
I cannot, I am afraid, give this undertaking. We must wait for a comprehensive plan embracing both, and it would be wasteful to do it in any other way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; c. 510.]
That, broadly, is what the Minister is saying this afternoon.
I should like to have an assurance in respect of B.B.C. medium-wave back-up that there will be no holding back the B.B.C. in order to advantage the commercial stations if and when they are set up. It may be that there is an agreement, although I would not totally accept it, to look at the two together so that one can


examine a medium-frequency back-up when the v.h.f services are set up. We should be greatly disturbed if the commercial stations were put at an advantage in this matter compared with the B.B.C. existing medium-frequency stations.
There is also the point that has been raised outside the House that the White Paper proposals run counter to the whole ethos, background and history of British broadcasting. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a quirk or accident of history that we had never had commercial radio in this country. I do not accept that statement. It was due to no accident of history. It was fortunately due to the fact that some rather perceptive people, at the time radio was introduced, took a long hard look at what was happening to the commercialisation of radio in other countries and thought that Britain's broadcasting would be better run, and that the British people would be better served, by public service broadcasting rather than commercial broadcasting. The whole history of the last 50 years bears out that principle rather than destroys it.
We on this side are not defenders of the B.B.C., although, compared with this ragbag of ideas in the White Paper, it seems almost to approach perfection. But it has a number of great advantages which the commercial service, if it is ever set up, will not have. First, it is a public service organisation. We on this side of the House regard that as extremely important. Secondly, it consciously tries to preserve a balance. Thirdly, it consciously and deliberately tries to maintain high standards—and what on earth is wrong with that? To try to maintain high standards is an expensive and not necessarily popular thing to do. It will not necessarily attract large audiences. But in dealing with something as important in the life of the nation as our broadcasting service we should welcome rather than denigrate an organisation which consciously and deliberately tries to maintain high standards.
Fourthly, the B.B.C. has another great advantage in that it sets out deliberately and consciously to cater for minority tastes and interests, as well as for those of the majority. In some ways this should be the real test of a good broadcasting service—it is not over-difficult to produce

a broadcasting service which can put out programmes consisting purely of pop, which many people may want to listen to. If the Musicians' Union were prepared to agree, it could be done for a relatively small amount of money. Whether it is good or bad pop is another matter. A service which deliberately sets out to cater for minority taste in the community should be welcomed and not denigrated.
Finally, the B.B.C.'s great advantage is its independence and undoubted and recognised integrity, and the fact that it can and does experiment.
These advantages have arisen in the B.B.C. not because broadcasting has gone on in this way by an accident of history, as the right hon. Gentleman said, over the past 40 to 50 years, but because some people who were in charge of broadcasting in this country took deliberate decisions to try to organise it in that way. In our view, they were right.

Mr. Gorst: The hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to mislead us in any way. Is he saying that commercial radio would not perform a public service function? If he is, I would point out that in Canada, where there are both public and private systems, one of the largest stations in Toronto provides 26,000 free announcements of a public service nature per annum.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Member for Hendon, North has anticipated me by three paragraphs and five minutes. In a few moments I shall tell him why I think commercial radio will move in the opposite direction from that in which the B.B.C. has consciously and deliberately tried to move.
The distinction between the commercial radio structure envisaged in the White Paper and the one which the B.B.C. envisaged, and which the last Government sanctioned, is that the pressures on commercial radio must all be to maximise audiences. That is what it is there for. Let us take what is perhaps an absurd example; let us imagine Radio Scunthorpe under the right hon. Gentleman's plans. What is it in business to do? It is in business to get revenue from people who wish to advertise their goods, and then to try to maximise the number of people who will be told about those


goods by the manufacturers and the advertisers. Therefore, the whole pressure on commercial radio is bound to be in the direction of maximising audiences. Once it is in that situation, standards are bound to fall.
I cannot imagine that Radio Scunthorpe, faced as it will be with a battle for a slice of what now seems to be admitted to be about £10 million-worth of advertising revenue that may be available to commercial radio, will offer many plays to the good people of Scunthorpe, the burgesses. I do not imagine that there will be any great current affairs programmes on Radio Scunthorpe. I do not imagine that even the 3 per cent. of the population of Scunthorpe—or whatever figure the right hon. Gentleman used—who at present listen to B.B.C. Radio 3 will hear from Radio Scunthorpe a great deal of minority classical music programmes. I do not think that they will hear many political discussions. What they will hear is as much pop as the Musicians' Union can be persuaded to disgorge.
It is an appalling reflection that the responsibility for maintaining standards in the new commercial radio set-up will be left to the Musicians' Union rather than be placed where it ought to be—on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. and learned Gentleman's definition of the purposes of local radio can be exactly applied to local newspapers, and yet we know perfectly well that the results are completely different from those which he has postulated.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman made great fun of a speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I commend to the hon. Gentleman these words: that commercial broadcasting is to be condemned because it distorts—that is the phrase—the purpose of broadcasting
by reason of the fundamental purposes for which the vehicle is used—not broadcasting for its own sake but its use as a medium in which advertisements can live."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; Vol. 176, c. 1349.]
I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman will not agree with that. [Interruption.] It was not meant to be a very good

performance. But when the present Lord Chancellor used those words——

Mr. Chataway: When were the words used?

Mr. Richard: A long time ago. The Lord Chancellor used those words in relation to the ethos of commercial broadcasting. Whether they were said in 1922, as they might well have been by the first Director-General of the B.B.C., or by the House of Commons when it was then considering the structure of broadcasting, or in 1942, 1952 or today, the principle is still valid, and is one that we on this side accept.
If the pressures are to be to produce larger and larger audience figures, because otherwise commercial radio stations will not get the revenue, what will the result be on programme content? Unless restraint is applied, by the Musicians' Union or the I.B.A., or some other force, the pressure will be to maximise audiences by putting out trivia. I accept that there is a distinction between good pop and bad pop, but anyone who thinks that local radio commercial stations will put out good pop is making an extraordinary mistake. What the listener will get is something on the lines of what many people in the United States have to suffer—an almost undigested diet interrupted far too often by advertisements of bad pop and what is loosely believed to be that which appeals to the largest audience.
The fact that one can produce, free, something which is essentially trivial, does not make it necessarily non-trivial, nor does it make it desirable. The thought of 60 Radio Scunthorpes all producing the same type of programme for their own localities, all aiming at an audience of housebound housewives, car commuters and possibly schoolchildren or students, when they are available, does not appeal. Apart from its not appealing on aesthetic grounds, what a waste of a national asset ! It is not as if this country had a superfluity of wavelengths.
The right hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the United States. He told us that American broadcasting was not as bad as many people thought. I once sat down in Los Angeles with a wireless set and started tuning it, literally going around the bands. I tuned to about 15 stations. They were all broadcasting on a medium wave because in this respect the United


States is fortunate in not having Europe 22 miles off its coast. Each one was putting out almost exactly the same kind of programme. One had a choice at that moment of no fewer than 15 pop stations. I regard that as essentially trivial and a waste of the wavelengths available in that part of the world.

Mr. Chataway: All the arguments the hon. and learned Gentleman has used up to now to condemn commercial broadcasting apply just as strongly to commercial television. Are we to take it, from his general denunciation, that the Labour Party now is entering into an undertaking to wind up commercial television?

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman cannot read that into what I have said. If he does his capacity for crystal-gazing is only equalled by his capacity for evasion. In a few moments, I will tell him the advantages, as he himself saw them—although his proposal was overruled by the Cabinet—that a national commercial organisation might have had as opposed to a set of local organisations.
In the debate in the House of Lords the Bishop of Coventry expressed what I think is the real question. He said:
What is the purpose? Is the purpose, as the White Paper states, 'to combine popular programming with fostering a greater public awareness of local affairs and involvement in the local community'? Or is it to be only a further electronic extension of the marketing of goods and thereby the enrichment of certain private pockets?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 481.]
I think the bishop expressed the antithesis exactly. If this was a proposal for, as Lord Eccles said, re-invigorating a local community so that the butcher could ring up and say, "My sausages will be sold at 32p a lb. this afternoon", or if the local fishmonger could ring up and say, "We have nice sole today", or if the local dramatic society could put out some kind of radio play, it might combine popular programming with a greater public awareness of local affairs and involvement of the local community. But does anyone imagine that that is the type of programme that will take place under this scheme?
Are the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) in the business to make sure that the

Scunthorpe dramatic society gets a fair crack of the whip on Radio Scunthorpe or that the local butcher in the High Street gets a fair crack of the advertising revenue They know as well as anyone else, and recognise it, that they are in business simply to try to get as much advertising revenue on that commercial local radio station as possible.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot (Brighouse and Spenborough) indicated assent.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough admits it. So be it !

Mr. Stratton Mills: Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North) rose——

Mr. Richard: I have been generous in giving way, and I do not want to detain the House too long. I have some specific points in the White Paper to put to the Minister, and if the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will forgive me, I want to get on now and put them.
In the While Paper the right hon. Gentleman has spelt out a structure for commercial radio. He says that
… the Government proposes to entrust the new service to the I.T.A., which will be renamed the 'Independent Broadcasting Authority'.
What is to happen? Exactly how is the I.B.A. to maintain standards? We are entitled to know how much advertising it is envisaged should be allowed on commercial radio stations. We want to know what the ratio of musical to non-musical programmes is to be. We want to know what the ratio of local to national programmes is to be. Mr. Hughie Green said recently that he envisaged that approximately 50 per cent. of the output of local radio stations would be national network programmes. Is that the sort of proportion that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind? Is the Authority to get strong guidance from the Government as to the type of programming it will permit? We and the country at large are entitled to know.
Further, we want to know a little more how the I.B.A.'s control is to be exercised. There were various enigmatic remarks in the debate in the House of Lords, particularly in the speeches of


Lord Eccles and Lord Denham. Referring to the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Eccles said:
He believes that although the techniques of control may well differ from the control of television advertisements, the I.B.A., as it will be called, has the experience to work out and operate a system of control applied after, and not before, the programmes are produced.
What does this mean? Does it mean, for example, that once every two or three years, or whenever the franchise is reviewed, the I.B.A. will review the sort of programmes put out by Radio Scunthorpe in the preceding period? What are the managers of commercial radio to be told about the sort of programme that, in the opinion of the I.B.A., it would be appropriate for them to put out?
Lord Eccles went on to say:
If you study how it will work, you will see see that there really is a grip on the parties who have the contracts to make them maintain the standards set by the I.B.A."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 468.]
That is an act of faith, not a statement of policy, because the policy has not been spelt out, and until it is the Government can not expect much support for the White Paper.
I want to say something about the possibility of news programmes. I accept utterly that the development of I.T.N. has been nothing but good. It has produced a first-class news service. If we have to have commercial radio, I would like to see the I.T.N. take over responsibility for providing a national news service for it. Of course—and the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do—the difficulties of producing news for radio broadcasting are much greater than the difficulties of producing news for television. It has to be done far more often, and more people are needed. Who, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, will do the news gathering? I suspect that, unless there is a strong, central, national organisation like the I.T.N., it will be done for these local stations by tapes, wire services and—dare one say it?—the B.B.C. I have a feeling that Radio Scunthorpe's news will take place about 20 minutes after the B.B.C.'s news. What it will need, therefore, is a very good sub-editor.
If the right hon. Gentleman has any proposals with which to back up his

extraordinarily pretentious and absurdly over-ambitious claim in the White Paper that these stations will be sources of national and international news which will in time stand comparison with the B.B.C. service, I should be delighted to hear them.
Lord Eccles gave one of the most extraordinary justifications for a separate commercial news service I have ever heard. I trust that the Government will disavow his words. I quote the passage because it is necessary for the House to get the full flavour: Lord Eccles said:
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications … is strongly of the opinion that the British public ought to have more than one national news service, and I was very glad that the noble Baroness touched on this matter. I realise from my own experience how easily we get used to the pattern and choice of news that comes to us on radio, year in and year out, from a single source. Here may I say to the noble Viscount that it is in the morning when you want the radio news. You do not get television news at exactly the same time.
Then Lord Eccles used words which even for him seem to be somewhat strong:
I often think that because the B.B.C. radio news suits me so well and suits other more or less well educated middle-class listeners, it must mean that it does not suit the much larger part of the population who do not have the same vocabulary or the same interests as, say, the Members of both Houses of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 471.]
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has it in mind that educated, middle-class people like Lord Eccles should continue to listen to the B.B.C. and that commercial radio should, as it were, provide one-syllable news broadcasts for the plebs. It would not be wholly inappropriate if the right hon. Gentleman were to breathe one or two gentle words of disapproval or dissociation from the sentiments expressed by his noble Friend in another place.
To justify a national news service of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind, the amount of news that will have to be broadcast will need to be very great. Mr. Hughie Green has recently been giving voice to some of his views upon the sort of news he would like to hear commercial radio stations broadcasting. He said:
We will give the public the news they want to hear.


I am not quite sure what that means but it is ominous. He then said:
We cannot afford to educate. We will be commercial from beginning to end.
I am bound to say that if this is really the way in which potential or prospective operators of this service see the responsibility of putting out the news, then it is the most fatuous statement of all.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Hughie Green has also said that the news service must be provided and presented by actors and not real people as this would give a more exciting presentation?

Mr. Richard: It only illustrates——

Mr. Gorst: Mr. Gorst rose——

Mr. Richard: I have given way a great deal. The hon. Gentleman has views which I have no doubt he is bursting to express. I hope he will have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It seems that there is a sentence in the Pilkington Report which aptly and appropriately——

Mr. Gorst: Ah !

Mr. Richard: It is a very good sentence, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows it and expected it to be quoted at him. It is very apt when we think of Mr. Green and "We'll give the public the things they want." Pilkington said this:
Those who say they will give the public what it wants begin by under-estimating public taste and end up by debauching it.
These statements by potential operators, such as Mr. Green, are really saying "What the public wants equals what we reckon we can give it cheaply so that we can make the maximum amount of profit."
I had intended to say one or two words about the Press but I am conscious of the fact that I have detained the House long enough. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) will deal with this in winding up.
Let me sum up our objections to this White Paper. First, I think it is imprecise and vague in its most important details; namely, the way in which control is to be exercised, and the relationship

between the I.B.A. and the programme companies. Secondly, this White Paper has all the hallmarks of an enforced compromise between what I believe the right hon. Gentleman knew the service really demanded—namely, a national network with a strong public service commitment, even if financed by advertising, and, therefore, a real alternative to the B.B.C.—and the Cabinet's perception of how to fulfil what was in essence a very foolish pre-election pledge.

Mr. Chataway: This, as I understand it, is the kernel of the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection. What kind of national network, in the sense that this is not a national network, is he advocating in place of what the White Paper proposes?

Mr. Richard: What I am saying is that the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman put to the Cabinet—and which leaked like a sieve up and down Fleet Street—would have been very much better than the ones the Cabinet overruled and produced in this White Paper.

Mr. Chataway: Monstrous !

Mr. Richard: It may be monstrous but it is true.
Our third objection to this White Paper is that the structure it proposes cannot cater for minority interests. Although majority interests ought to be catered for and ought to have priority, nevertheless minority interests are entitled to be considered. All the pressures are in the opposite direction, away from catering for minority interests, in the direction of maximising audiences. Fourthly, this is a waste of what is a precious national asset; namely, the available wavelengths. We are not well off for wavelengths in this country. We shall have to renegotiate the Copenhagen Convention at some time, and to waste wavelengths in this way is, in our view, quite wrong.
Finally, I do not believe that the structure proposed in the White Paper is in any way genuinely local. It will not provide the nice, cosy, local picture which Lord Eccles tried to paint in another place. It will not answer what he called the central question; namely: Will it re-invigorate local communities? I do not believe it will. In essence our attack on the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper


is that it is basically a trivialisation of broadcasting. Therefore, we shall vote against it tonight.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Listening to the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), it might be thought that everyone on this side of the House has an interest to declare. The only interest that I have to declare is that of a person who has worked in radio and television for 15 years. During that time I developed a great deal of respect and affection for these media, and I am concerned about their future and the future of the people who work in them.
I welcome the Government's proposal in principle to introduce an alternative service of radio broadcasting. The word "alternative" was very much in use in the 1950s, both here and in another place, when we were considering the introduction of commercial television. Much has happened since, not all of it commendable. After all, one of our main criticisms of television is that the two principal services are not true alternatives at all. They are too similar in content and approach to the public and programming.
It is clear that the White Paper shows the Government's anxiety to avoid the same kind of mistaken development in radio. I wonder whether we have gone far enough in defining the different rôles that the Government expect the B.B.C. and the new I.B.A. to play. The proposed commercial radio network will have to secure a sizeable audience to survive. We must do more than hope that the B.B.C. will not ape whatever tactics the new radio companies may devise. We know that when I.T.V. began the B.B.C. surreptitiously changed its motto to "Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor". We hope very much that this kind of development will not happen again.

Mr. Richard: Translation, please.

Mr. Roberts: "I see the better and follow the worst".
We hope that this kind of development will not happen again to the B.B.C. on the introduction of commercial radio. Both Parliament and the public value the service which the B.B.C. alone can provide, because it is, or should be, unaffected

by viewing and listening figures. I urge this most strongly in the interests of the public and of broadcasting.
We have heard a lot this afternoon about giving the people what they want. I stress that there is scope for the B.B.C. to give people more of what they ought to have, even if the I.B.A. services give the people what they want. Let us not forget that Shakespeare gave the people what they wanted, but he also gave them what they had not dreamed of. There is scope for both the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. to give the public what they have not dreamed of.
I want to concentrate briefly on two aspects of the Government's proposals. The first has to do with the relationship between radio and television. I understand and approve of the Government's proposal that the alternative radio service should be the responsibility of the Independent Television Authority, which is to be transformed into the new Independent Broadcasting Authority. This is a sensible proposal, and I feel sure that the new I.B.A. will do the job well, but we should be forewarned against developing too close a link between television and radio in practice, because there is and will be a tendency to regard radio as the poor relation of television. Radio is a distinctive medium with its own potential excellence. Its economics are different, its methods less cumbersome. It is my considered view that in practice the new radio service should be allowed as much freedom as possible to develop on its own and, especially, be free of television influences, which will tend to dominate it.
Those of us who worked in B.B.C. radio during the period when the B.B.C. was developing its television services will know that, despite protestations and denials at the time, radio suffered "Cinderella" treatment. I, therefore, do not relish the prospect of the existing I.T.V. contractors having any stake whatsoever in the new radio companies. The independent television contractors' influence can only militate against competition both in advertising and in programme content. There is no real need, as there may be with the Press, for participation by the independent television contractors.
The White Paper suggests three alternative ways of securing a national radio news service, one of which is that it should be provided by Independent


Television News. Although I am sure I.T.N. could do the job very well—I have the highest regard for I.T.N.—I object to this in principle and favour the setting up of a separate independent radio news service which will exploit the linked potentialities of radio, unhampered by television considerations. There is no other medium which can bring news quicker to the public, and, given professional people dedicated to this task with dynamic organisation behind them, the news service will quickly gain authority, respect and affection. We need more independent sources of news and a greater variety of comment and commentators. I regard this variety as the best safeguard we have for our democratic processes, and as an essential part of those processes.
Secondly, the Government are not very specific in their proposals for Scotland and Wales. I hope that this does not mean that the advent of the alternative service to Scotland and Wales will be unduly delayed. My right hon. Friend may have a proposal for an alternative to the national services on Radio 4 in Scotland and Wales. We must not miss a great opportunity to add to the variety of community life in our national regions. I can speak only for Wales in this context, but I am sure the same is true of Scotland.
Wales has at least four conurbations capable of supporting viable radio companies, two centred in the South at Cardiff and Swansea, and possibly two in the North at Wrexham and Llanddudno. All these areas have special characteristics and a special contribution to make to Welsh life. The people in these areas feel that they have not been fully represented and reflected in the broadcasting media in the past. I am not arguing against a Welsh network, but I hope that it would not be dominated either by the South or by the North and that parity would be given to contributions from all parts of the area.

Mr. Buchan: With respect, the White Paper was clear on that point. There will be no such station suggested for Scotland, nor will there be a B.B.C. local radio station for Scotland. The answer, quite specifically, was to use Radio 4, as at present. The answer is "None".

Mr. Roberts: I understand that there will be, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be contributing to the debate.
I end by stressing the importance of radio and television to Wales in connection with the survival of the Welsh language. I pay tribute to the work already done by B.B.C. radio and television, and by I.T.V., in the promotion of the language. We very much hope, too, that the new alternative service for radio will make its contribution to the survival of the most ancient spoken language of this land.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister referred to discussion about the ideal number of commercial local radio stations. For my part, the ideal number would be nil. I as strongly in favour of public service broadcasting in principle. Its motive is to serve the public. The motive of those who argue so strongly in favour of commercial local radio is to line their own pockets, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) pointed out.
On the Minister's own argument, the existing 20 stations of the B.B.C. are not enough. There is disappointment that for the time being there are to be only 20 public service local radio stations instead of the 40 originally planned.

Mr. Buchan: And none in Scotland.

Mr. Morris: There are many criticisms which can be advanced on behalf of Wales and Scotland, and there are many English regions which feel strongly on this matter.
The Minister missed the opportunity today to pay a well-deserved tribute to the existing local stations of the B.B.C. I expected him to say that they have been remarkably successful since their inception. Local public service broadcasting from its beginnings has become increasingly broadcasting of a very high standard.
I hope that the Minister will remedy what I regard as a major gap in his speech and will pay a timely and just tribute to the excellent work which has been done by the B.B.C. through its existing local stations. At present, not more than about one-third of radio set owners


are equipped to receive v.h.f. It is, therefore, very important that the B.B.C's. local stations should have the use of supporting medium-wave frequencies as soon as possible so that the B.B.C. may immediately extend its local service to those living within the respective coverage areas who are not yet equipped with v.h.f. receivers.
In reply to a Parliamentary Question on 31st March asking when he expected
the British Broadcasting Corporation Radio London service to receive … the medium-wave back-up transmission facilities".
the Minister said:
It is too soon to say. But I envisage that the provision of medium frequency back-up for B.B.C. local radio stations will keep broadly in step with the commencement of the I.B.A.'s service as its stations come on the air."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 410–11.]
The effect of this will be that a very large number of people who could have access to B.B.C. local radio programmes will be deprived of them for a considerable time. They will be so deprived for much longer than would be the case if medium frequencies were allocated to the stations which are already fully operational as soon as they become available. I ask the Minister to reconsider the position.
One further matter of real importance that I wish to raise with the Minister is the White Paper's comments on the rôle of B.B.C. local radio in the dual system. It will continue, in the words of the White Paper, to
attach first importance to serving a wide variety of minority audiences, including local schools and colleges".
It will not exclude such broadcasts from peak listening hours.
As the House knows well, the B.B.C's plans for local radio have always emphasised that form of public service, but B.B.C. local radio must not cease to cater for larger audiences. Competition will not be genuine if commercial radio virtually ignores minorities and B.B.C. local radio has to deal with nothing else. So the B.B.C., in my view and that of many other hon. Members, must not allow itself to be elbowed out of the way at peak listening hours or deterred from providing proper community services to the large audiences that are

available at certain times of the day. Nor should the B.B.C. abandon the minority interests which it has cultivated at those times of the day when a maximum audience is potentially available, even though they may be generally thought of as minority listening periods for radio.
We shall be watching the right hon. Gentleman very carefully on this deeply sensitive part of the White Paper. Nor shall we be alone in this. To their honour, there are right hon. and hon. Members opposite who not only respect public service broadcasting but also wish to see it prosper. In recent debates there have been several right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have detached themselves from the commercialism that is associated with other right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
I apologise to the House in advance if I am not here for part of the rest of the debate. I must leave the House to address a national meeting on disablement, but I will return as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will address himself seriously to the points I have raised with him.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Like my hon. Friends, I begin by declaring that I have no interest whatsoever and that my enthusiasm for commercial radio could fairly be described as excessively moderate. None the less, I shall support my right hon. Friend, but I want to raise with him a number of uncertainties which I think I have discovered from reading his White Paper.
First, my right hon. Friend has called for a widespread debate upon news in commercial radio. Ever since the publication of the White Paper I have scoured the newspapers, but I have seen no evidence of such a debate. Indeed, I hoped that I would be asked by some editor to make my own contribution to this subject, but, alas, there has been no such request.
One suggestion which has been made is that commercial radio will be obliged to accept a service such as I.T.N. Like everyone else who has spoken so far, I believe that I.T.N.'s record in broadcasting is unparalleled. Another suggestion—which is more sympathetically regarded


by the commercial radio lobby—is that commercial radio should have access to national and international news from news agencies on the basis of rip and read, as this would be less expensive and would impose a lesser burden upon commercial radio's finances in the early stages.
In an effort to carry this non-existent debate a stage further, may I ask why there is this curious obsession with national and international news? Were I to be unfortunate enough to be driving in a motor car with the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in the vicinity of Scunthorpe or in any of the 59 other areas, I should like to hear details of municipal scandals, not of national and international crises.
It is a curious view which my right hon. Friends holds, and which perhaps we all share, that commercial operators—for this is what they are—should be obliged to bore us at regular intervals with national and international news. This view should be challenged.
I must quarrel, too, with my right hon. Friend in his admiration for William Hardcastle. One can have several views about Hardcastle. I do not share my right hon. Friend's admiration for the sort of approach which has now become current on B.B.C. radio and the way in which it treats the news. I do not like it. I like my news straight, especially on radio. I fear that whether we have an I.T.N. or, indeed, a newsagency solution to the news problem on commercial radio, we shall be bored to death with all these views of people whom we have no wish to hear expressing opinions on the wave-lengths, as they do at the moment.
Hardcastle is bad enough. For a long time we had Anthony Howard, an excellent journalist whom I read every week in the New Statesman. He appeared on Sundays, but I made certain that he did not come between me and the roast beef of old England.
Leaving news on one side, what about the whole concept of commercial radio making excessive profits? How does my right hon. Friend define "excessive profits", and how, once he has stumbled upon a definition, does he intend to go about restricting them? I hope that my right hon. Friend does not fall into the error that the previous Administration

made of slapping a levy upon commercial radio but will, instead, immediately license more stations so as to introduce into this sphere an element of increased competition.
The uncertainties in the White Paper are legion. What is to happen about needle time? When will my right hon. Friend sit down with the Musicians' Union? When will some agreement be reached? Manx Radio has an agreement to have six hours' needle time a day. I am told that the six hours is the minimum figure that any viable commercial radio station should need.
I come, then, to the I.B.A. In my view, the I.B.A. should not be the spokesman for commercial radio but the watchdog of the public interest. It should not repeat the mistakes of the I.TA. which for far too long has been locking stable doors.
My hon. Friend has put the B.B.C. local radio stations in a very curious position by suggesting to them that they have to concentrate——

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman says that the I.B.A. should not repeat the I.T.A.'s mistake of bolting the stable door after the horse has gone. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember the two quotations which I put to the Minister from Lord Eccles and Lord Denham in which they said clearly that the control of the I.B.A. over commercial stations should be ex post facto, after the programmes have gone out. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is desirable?

Mr. Critchley: That is not an unreasonable suggestion about the way in which the output of commercial radio might be monitored. However, I think there is general agreement between those who have thought about the I.T.A. that it has had a history of shutting the stable door both in terms of violence on television, to which it has reacted far too late and once an offence has been committed, and in terms of bias.
To return to my point about the unnatural restrictions which my right hon. Friend has placed upon the B.B.C.'s local radio stations, he seems to suggest that they are not to compete and that they are to limit themselves in some degree to providing the kind of minority programmes which no one wants to hear. But the B.B.C. is highly competitive. It


is the most competitive of all the broadcasting authorities. The way in which the B.B.C. has reacted to the challenge of Independent television has been marvellous and incredible. It is a very sanguine view to expect the B.B.C.'s local radio stations not to compete with commercial radio stations in the same areas.
There will be a natural desire on the part of the B.B.C. to compete. In addition, it has access to nationally-raised licence-fee money which it can use as it wishes to meet any challenge in any given area. Were it to fear that competition in any area threatened to become excessive, it could use its licence money to concentrate on that area. The real point is that the commercial radio stations possibly should be protected against the degree of competition which, if it wished, the B.B.C. would be able to deploy against them.
There must be a middle way between the strictures of Hughie Green and the Whiggery of the 1976 Group. I always thought that the Whigs were attractive people until I heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court. At the end of the day, if my hon. Friend manages to find a middle way between two such awful extremes he will have my support.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I have no doubt that the Minister is feeling that with friends like the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) he has little need of enemies on this side of the House. I noticed him wince a little as he listened to what his hon. Friend was saying. I have some sympathy for him since I played a slightly critical rôle, though I hope not so sharply, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were in office.

Mr. Gorst: Mr. Gorst rose——

Mr. Jenkins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. However, I hope he will allow me to get at least a few words out of the way before I do so. I shall bear the hon. Gentleman in mind for a later intervention if he can possess his soul in patience for a while.

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman will probably give my hon. Friend what he wants !

Mr. Jenkins: There is an evident lack of enthusiasm for the White Paper which has made itself felt on the benches opposite as well as on this side of the House. The problem stems from the fact that it is extremely difficult for Governments to form a coherent philosophy on what they should do about broadcasting. The Minister is in the unfortunate position of having been forced to change his mind, and to bring forward proposals about which he has not been able to convince us that he is wholehearted. When my party was in office, we had a different method. When the Government found Ministers who did not share its views, we used to change the Ministers. The party opposite makes Ministers change their minds. The Minister in this case is in a difficult position, and we have considerable sympathy for him. He is bringing forward proposals in which he has no doubt worked himself up to believe. He has had some difficulty in getting there.
The uncertainty about what the Government should do shows through in the White Paper, and the media have seen it. The Financial Times has described the White Paper as "vague and imprecise", and so it is. That is why the Minister tried to persuade my hon. and learned Friend that he was a member of the Government and that it was his White Paper. The Minister talked about my hon. and learned Friend's policy. However, I must explain to the right hon. Gentleman that he is a member of the Government, it is his policy, and we are discussing his White Paper.

Mr. Richard: Whether he likes it or not.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, whether he likes it or not. Therefore, I propose to talk about the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper and not about the theroetical policy which no doubt my hon. and learned Friend one of these days will follow when he succeeds to the right hon. Gentleman's position.
As I say, the problem stems clearly from the uncertainty of the Government about what they want to do. They gave an election pledge without working out how they proposed to implement it. They have still not made up their minds about what they want to do.
I ought perhaps in passing to refer to the problems that my right hon. and hon.


Friends faced when they were in office, since they are relevant to the current problems. There were differences of opinion on our side about these matters. The 1966 White Paper proposed a plan of local broadcasting which in practice has not proved to be quite as local as was intended. The reason is that there was no detailed working out of the finances that were proposed for the local stations. Consequently, when the B.B.C. was put in charge of local radio, the local radio stations did not entirely fulfil the plans put forward in the 1966 White Paper. It was hoped, for example, that they would play a wide cultural rôle in local communities. They have fulfilled a very important rôle, but it has not been a cultural one. They have not engaged performers of even local importance. The employment that they have given has been mostly in terms of news and local current affairs. They have undoubtedly contributed to the community, better in some areas than in others, but they have not done what the 1966 White Paper hoped they would do.
The difficulty in the present White Paper is to discover what the Government hope to do other than provide a lucrative sideline for their friends who are already well off. In the first paragraph of the White Paper there is a reference to the advantage of more than one form of employment. I am all for that, since I have an interest in the amount of employment provided by this medium and in performers generally. As hon. Members know, I have a connection of long standing with British Actors Equity Association, and I am not unconcerned about employment. What type of employment is commercial radio likely to supply?
Although I am concerned about employment, I recognise that it cannot be the primary consideration. However, I put it a top second. The public must come first. What plan is being put forward in the White Paper? What will it do for the public? Will it provide real competition with an alternative service? Is it a genuine alternative service of radio broadcasting or is that mere verbiage? In the White Paper we do not get a great deal of support for the hope that this will be an alternative which will make a real contribution to the public interest. Will it extend the boundaries of broadcasting? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite

who are most in favour of it ready to admit that it will do no such thing, that it will not examine new possibilities of broadcasting?
Will it provide real competition? Will it be a real service? Will it enlarge the experience of anybody who listens to it? Will it provide a genuine degree of employment? Will it provide a wide range of output for a variety of tastes? These are the real questions. Will those who listen to these stations discover on them a worth-while degree of choice? The answer to these questions is: will it hell !

Mr. Proudfoot: Surely the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend say that the pirates increased the audience by 25 per cent. and that 25 per cent. has been lost.

Mr. Jenkins: I think that statistics about the increase of audience by pirate radio are suspect. If the hon. Gentleman imagines that it is possible for any legal radio service to do the kind of thing which the pirates were doing illegally, he is mistaken and in for a great disappointment.
I remind the House that it is not only the Musicians Union which is concerned, but the record companies. There is a collective interest to make sure that the radio stations do not undermine not only the basis upon which the Musicians Union rests but the basis upon which British music rests. Therefore, it is not merely a trade union interest to make sure that the needle time agreements are not breached; there is a wide general interest.
In my view, it is inevitable that any addition made to any one of the media affects the others. This is relevant to something said by the hon. Member for Conway. I agree that the arrival of commercial television had an impact upon the B.B.C. I believe that on the whole it had a good impact; it also had some bad effects. It had the effect of making the B.B.C. a bit over-conscious of the number of people watching; it became over-concerned with the charts.
I do not say that the arrival of commercial television was damaging to the B.B.C. I take the opposite view. But the question arises whether, because that happened with commercial television, we are entitled to assume that a similar


generally beneficial effect will arise from what is proposed in the White Paper. There is no evidence to show that we can expect that effect.
The modification of the media applies not only in broadcasting, but elsewhere. The arrival of The Sun newspaper, the disappearance of the Daily Sketch and the maiming of the Daily Mail will affect not only the national dailies, but indirectly, in time, radio and television. They will affect not only their advertising revenue, but subtly their presentation and outlook. Therefore, we shall make a mistake if we do not think of the media as a whole.
My regret about the proposal contained in the White Paper is similar to that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). A particular section has been taken out of context when in fact the time is ripe for an examination not only of the broadcasting media, but of the whole media of public information and entertainment. Until we take this broad look at the whole scene we are likely to come to wrong conclusions about the various parts of it. If I were asked to say over the last few years where successive governments have gone wrong in their appraisal of these issues, my answer would be that no one has ever recognised that our media of information and entertainment are a collective whole and cannot be looked at objectively and usefully except as a collective whole. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about this proposal. We cannot ask them to withdraw the White Paper, because we would not know what it was they were withdrawing; but we can ask them to take a fresh, wider and more complete look at it and to set up, if not a Royal Commission, at least a Departmental Committee. If they prefer to call it a Departmental Committee, or describe it by some other phraseology, we are not worried, so long as it is a high-powered and real examination which extends over the whole sphere.
The impact of I.T.V. upon B.B.C. television was not wholly good. It brought about an obsession with audience ratings and the wretched idea of programme matching, so that the question at a certain time of the day is which Western one will see, rescued to some extent by the arrival of B.B.C.2 for those who can get it.
What distresses me, and probably some hon. Gentlemen opposite from the remarks which they have made, is the rather irritating adolescence which characterises the presenter, as he is now called, with his insulting bogus enthusiasm and apparent ignorance of the very existence of such things as values. I fear that the arrival of commercial radio will not take us away from, but will accentuate, this development of presentation performance. It worries me to think that just as the B.B.C. reacted badly in some ways to the arrival of commercial television, so the arrival of commercial radio may have the effect of sharpening the descent into jollification of presentation which some of us find extremely irksome and hard to bear, whoever does it.
The history of legislation about the media suggests that we in this House propose certain laws, that we carry them into legislation, and are rather surprised, after a few years, that what we proposed in the law has not been carried out in effect. We find that commercial forces which operate in these areas have a habit of moving things in the direction in which they wish to go. Therefore, whatever is proposed in the White Paper has to be backed by pretty tight legislation if the Government wish their proposals to be fulfilled and carried out.
It is interesting to recall—many people may have forgotten—that it was originally thought that I.T.V. should primarily be a regional organisation. We have heard it said in this House that the regional stations still possess a substantial regional loyalty. But the degree of networking which takes place has ensured that the network programme is the norm and the regional programme is the rarity, which is the opposite to what was originally proposed. It was originally believed that the regional programme would be the norm and that the network programme would be the unusual.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The reason for the regional programme not being the norm is entirely due to lack of money which prevents the regional programmes taking more hours. It is nothing to do with what they want to do; they just have not got the money to do any more broadcasting.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is accepting my point, but standing the argument on its head. He is saying that more


money can be made on a network programme than on a regional programme. That is true. Television companies have sometimes found themselves in difficulty, and they are now going through a more difficult time than in the past, but huge fortunes have been made out of television, and surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that this is a question of lack of funds. That is far from being the case.
I now propose to return to the White Paper. The Government's proposals, in so far as it is possible to understand them, fall short of what some of us expected from the right hon. Gentleman. I have little hope for the type of project which the Government have put before us in the White Paper. It is difficult for local stations to make the sort of impact which the White Paper suggests, and I share the view that the idea that local radio will concern itself with national and international news is something that we should not even want.
That illustrates the confusion in the White Paper. There is national thinking behind these local radio stations. It is proposed to have 60 local radio stations, but it is interesting to note that although the White Paper refers to B.B.C. local radio, it refers not to I.R.B. local radio, but to I.R.B. radio. These stations are being thought of as a network before they start. I am sure that the commercial gentlemen who will bring these stations into being think about them as a network, because they cannot think about them in any other way. The reason is that the advertising that will finance these stations will be national rather than local.
That is the sort of problem which the right hon. Gentleman has to consider when he introduces his legislation. He has to ask, "What do we want here? Are we creating a national commercial network under another guise? Are we going to introduce the sort of legislation that will provide a genuine alternative at local level?" I doubt whether it can be done. The White Paper will not produce a local radio service. If anything, it will introduce a national advertising chain.
It may employ some musicians. I hope that it will. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) will have something to say about this. I

say that it may employ some musicians because I doubt whether commercial radio will get enough needle time unless it agrees to do so. Collectively, therefore, there may be some employment for musicians.
I do not think that the new stations will be pirates legalised, because what the pirates were doing will not be permitted. If local radio is not local, but is centrally controlled and financed, the Government will not have faced the real problem.
Commercial radio cannot be local radio because the advertising to finance it must seek a national market. Therefore, just as the previous Government failed to fulfil the full intention of their White Paper, so I wonder in what degree it will be possible for this Government to fulfil any part of the intention of their White Paper. I wonder whether it will get off the ground at all.
There are one or two other problems. The first is that advertising is not infinitely extendable, and expansion in one medium is sometimes undertaken at the cost of contraction in another. If, as is suggested in the White Paper, the compensation that is given to local newspapers which feel themselves threatened by the arrival of commercial radio, is an interest in the new medium, if they are told that they can have a share in the local commercial radio station, all that we shall succeed in doing is reducing the number of sources from which the public get their information. That seems to me to be reducing freedom. It seems astonishing that the White Paper proposes that the local Press should be given a statutory right to abrogate the most essential competition of all—the competition of ideas.
Competition in communications, and in the arts, is the most essential form of competition. It is this form of competition which the Government say shall, by law, be allowed to be eroded. Local papers can come in and say, "We shall have a single voice, one on the radio, and one in the local paper, but it shall be ours". The Minister shakes his head. The White Paper says that there is to be a degree of control, but I think that that will be got round fairly easily, and if the Minister would like to see precisely how it can be got round—I shall not take up the time of the House by elaborating on this—he should look at the Financial


Times, which spells out fairly clearly how these protections can be avoided, and how local papers which are part of national chains are likely to establish command of what, in turn, will become a national radio chain. If we are not careful, the net result will be that our total body of information will come with a less varied voice, and I suggest that variety of voice and variety of source are of the essence.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman does not want commercial radio anyway. There can be no question of what we are proposing producing a more limited voice than he would like to see.

Mr. Jenkins: I am coming to that. I shall, in my final words, suggest a real alternative to the B.B.C. programme. I do not think that the Government's proposal is an alternative. It seems to me to be an irrelevance.
There is a possibility of a real alternative, and this was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in his article in the New Statesman, to which the Minister referred. Not everyone may wish to agree with every word of my right hon. Friend's article. I have quarrelled with my right hon. Friend on more than one occasion, but in this article—I had some discussion with him about it—he made a good point when describing what had happened in the early days of television. He drew attention to the fact that at one time is was the Labour Party's view that there should be a single financial pool, consisting of the revenue from advertising, and licence revenue, and that from that pool should be financed both the broadcasting authorities.
My right hon. Friend also drew attention to something to which I have drawn attention more than once, because it is the key to the whole problem. It is the recommendation of the Pilkington Committee that the advertising revenue should go, not to the programme companies, but to the authority. I think that we should look at that plan and draw it into the commercial radio situation.
We should look at the possibility of having an independent broadcasting authority which could be the recipient of the total advertising revenue, which

could have responsibility and discharge it, which would have the duty of preserving variety in radio, and which would have the job of redistributing and making sure that programmes were comparable, over the whole range with B.B.C. programmes. If that were done, we might have what the White Paper says is an alternative radio service, but is not. I believe that any other Committee which examines this sphere is likely to return to this recommendation and that of the Pilkington Committee. The separation of the source of revenue from the control of programmes is of the essence.
It is not necessary for us to put forward a detailed alternative to the White Paper. I circulated some recommendations of mine to the Communications Group of the Parliamentary Labour Party some time ago, and I have implied that these were not far removed from the proposals which my right hon. Friend made in his New Statesman article.
In short, all broadcasting—radio and television—should be the responsibility of non-profit-making bodies like the B.B.C., but a controlled advertisement element should not be excluded from among the sources of income available to the media. Further, this matter cannot be considered properly unless the media are considered together.
That is why the Government should withdraw the White Paper, reconstitute the Annan Committee or one like it and charge it with the duty of examining the organisations in this area, their revenue, and the means of public information and entertainment. In the meantime, since the White Paper is totally irrelevant to this task, I trust that the House will vote against it.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. John Gorst: In the normal course of the proceedings of the House, it is usual to declare an interest in a subject. In pursuance of that, I should like to point out that for more than 10 years I have been pressing for the introduction of commercial local radio and that for more than half that time I have been Secretary of the Local Radio Association. Nevertheless, I hope that this does not mean that what I say will be taken as reflecting the views of that association, although our views may at many points coincide.
I should like to welcome—the Labour Party would be surprised if I were not—at least three things in the White Paper. The first is that it provides an alternative to the B.B.C. I hope that, in doing so, it will not erode the excellent service which has been provided by the B.B.C. for so many years. Second, I welcome enthusiastically the acceptance of the principle that we should have an alternative which is commercial. Third, I welcome the obvious fact that my right hon. Friend has a mind which is open to argument and suggestions for improvement. So I hope that some of my remarks will fall on fertile ground.
I should like to examine what, in my view—I do not suggest that there are not plenty of other opinions on this subject—local commercial radio is for, and the major aspects which seem to call for comment in the White Paper, and to propose some questions which require answers, even if they may be awkward questions.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), referring to my hon. Friends the Members for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), suggested that with friends like that we did not need any contribution from him. I might point out that with friends like Mr. Hughie Green we do not need anyone from the Opposition either.
It is reasonable that anyone considering road conditions should mention the dangers of having cars on them and also the advantages of cars. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that hon. Members opposite should concern themselves with standards and with what they see as the dangers and the horrors of commercial radio—in so far as they have ever heard it. But I hope that they will forgive me if I concentrate on what I believe to be the true nature of local commercial radio and its advantages and do not show so much concern about the dangers, which are left in very safe hands with the Opposition.
There is a popular misconseption that commercial local radio is an ugly, audio wallpaper which is to be hoisted on unwilling and sensitive members of the public by hard-boiled, greedy businessmen, solely for profit——

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member could not have said it better.

Mr. Gorst: —that it will be tasteless, squalid—as the Leader of the Opposition once called it—undecorous and valueless to the community. But the reality, if hon. Members were able to study rather more than cursorily the performance in other countries, is not infrequently very different from this.
Community news and information in general, supported by music, is often to be found—if it is not the rule—certainly in those areas of foreign countries with commercial radio stations. Indeed, it is axiomatic that all stations producing bad programmes do not make profits and that sub-standard programmes do not make substantial profits. Indeed, the reverse is true: a broad based and comprehensive social service invariably reaps financial rewards.
In studying the performance of both good and bad stations recently in Canada, which is a much better example than the United States because it has a public service, State-owned broadcasting system, it is clear that in order to succeed the ingredient for commercial success—I heard this time and again from both large and small stations—is based on two factors. The first is involvement with the community and the second is concern and care for the affairs of that community.
One might wonder how this involvement and concern are demonstrated. One way is through news. Contrary to the expectations of many people, news value goes in the order, first local news, then regional news, then national news and then international news. All things being equal, local news will be the lead story in any news bulletin.
A second way is community contact. By this I mean not only open line interviews with listening members of the public——

Mr. Neil McBride: The Minister said that news should be personalised. I do not know what the Minister meant, but does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Gorst: In many instances the personalisation may taken the form of the personality of the reporter on the local scene. This is welcome when it happens


because it reveals the concern and involvement of the station with the local community.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The hon. Gentleman said that the first priority in this form of broadcasting would be local news. How does he know that?

Mr. Gorst: Because I have seen it happen. One can hear local radio stations throughout the United States, Canada and Australia and be certain of this. The same is true of local newspapers. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman think of a local newspaper that could survive on news stories concerned solely with national or international affairs? The local event captures the headlines and thereby captures the readers. The same applies to local radio.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) made great play with the public service content of commercial radio. One station in Canada donated 23,335 free advertisements of a public service nature in 1969 and increased the number to 26,686 last year. The value in free advertising time, if it must be quantified, was 1,670,000 dollars, or £700,000, and this is not untypical of large and small stations throughout Canada.
The content of any local radio station will include music. Much has been said about the possibility of it being nasty, cheap pop, with many local stations demanding 100 per cent. needle time. Hon. Members may be interested in this comment by a successful Canadian local radio station:
Music is complementary to everything else and not a reason in itself. If the news is heavy, we try to make the music lighter and more fun—and at all times the music tries to reflect or counterpoint the mood of the station and the listener.
That results in a variety of music which moves from the classical, through the middle-of-the-road—what some might call "sweet music"—to what I have referred to as "acid rock". By this means stations are able to acquire an identity, varying from the serious to the all news and on to the less serious—in other words, from "foreground" stations, which require concentration in listening, to "background" stations.
The basis on which any plan for commercial local radio in this or any country

must rest is obviously the question of the availability of frequencies. In this connection, I would like to know from where my right hon. Friend's advice has come. For many years the B.B.C. and Post Office have been opposed to the setting up of commercial radio. Have they been the source of his advice?
Why has there been this death-bed repentance from the B.B.C. which has enabled it only now to find the necessary medium-wave frequencies? Has the advice on which my right hon. Friend's plans have been based been determined more to prevent more than 60 stations from coming into existence than to facilitate his plans?
This whole question of frequencies is vital because dependent on it is not merely the size of the audiences which these stations will have, not to mention the range and number of stations, but, most important, the extent to which there will be competition between them. In my view, competition between a B.B.C. local radio station and a commercial radio station is incomplete. It may be competition for listeners, but it can never be competition for advertising.
We should, when considering how many stations we should have, consider the number of stations in other countries, and the comparable figures seem extraordinary. The United States has, for a population of 196 million, 6,263 local radio stations. In the Commonwealth, New Zealand, with a population of 2·7 million, has 28 stations; Australia, with a population of 11·9 million, has 146 stations; and Canada, with a population of only 21 million, has 388 stations.

Mr. Whitehead: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is under an obligation to say what the association of which he is secretary now regards as the viable number of stations for this country. This number has varied as his association has grown older and wiser. Does it now consider that, in the different conditions of Europe, these stations could receive backing on the medium-wave?

Mr. Gorst: I will come to the question of viability shortly.
Leaving aside Manchester, London, Birmingham and Glasgow—the major centres of population—the proposal to provide up to 60 local stations will result


in our having a sort of macro-regional situation. The average population per station will be between 300,000 and 8 million. In my view, populations of this size are too large to be meaningful in terms of local radio. They could certainly be described as regional, and while I would not argue against regional radio, stations catering for populations of this size cannot be called local in character.
In the United States the average population per station is 33,846, and in Canada it is 58,474. In the view of the Local Radio Association, with which I am connected, the starting point, at least from the frequency planning point of view, has been suggested at a minimum of 70,000. It is clear, from a study of how and from where the advertising to support local stations comes, that a station serving a population of 150,000 or fewer will be primarily dependent on local advertising.
A station serving a population of more than that will, if it is at the bottom of the rating league, be likely to get the majority of its advertising from local sources, but any station serving a population of over 150,000—and in this country it might be a population of over 250,000—will undoubtedly have more national than local advertising, and from that point of view it will be regional or national in character. It will certainly not be local.
I should like to look at the possible advertising revenue and make a very rough calculation, because on this basis some very important conclusions will have to be drawn. Taking some 16 countries, world wide, in which there is commercial radio, the proportion of advertising expenditure devoted to commercial radio tends to be about 10 per cent. of the gross advertising expenditure. During the most recent year for which gross advertising figures in Britain are available, the expenditure here was £535 million, so on this basis it might be assumed that £53 million would be spent on a fully developed commercial radio system. However, initially we are told that only 70 per cent. of the population is to be covered, so the potential, therefore, is not to be £53 million but, say, £37 million. If one allows a further reduction because local radio will be, as I have suggested, regional radio, about 45 per cent. of the

£37 million will be coming from national sources. I fix on the figure of 45 per cent. because it is clear from studying the figures in other countries that this is approximately the ratio of national advertising expenditure to local advertising expenditure on the medium. That, therefore, cuts the possible expenditure on commercial radio in this country to £16½ million.
However, there will undoubtedly be a number of large regional advertisers who may get a look in. On the basis, again, of what has happened in other countries, it would seem that regional advertisers might take up about a quarter. Therefore, one has about £20 million, perhaps £25 million, that might be available for spending on the 60 commercial radio stations in Britain.
Whether or not hon. Members care to accept these figures, if anything like this happens we shall see that a very large sum of money, perhaps £300,000 to £400,000 a year, will be available on average to each station—considerably more for some, possibly slightly less for others.
Faced with that sort of income and the sort of expenditure on commercial local radio—assuming that it were the same as the B.B.C., in other words, £100,000 a year—what will my right hon. Friend do about the excessive profits? Whether we find a satisfactory definition of excessive profits or not, £200,000 to £300,000 a year profit could, by anyone's judgment, be regarded as excessive.
I hope that my right hon. Friend's answer will not be that we will have to have a levy, as we have seen in commercial television, but that we will have more competition between stations. I hope that he will say that v.h.f.-only stations will be permitted and that, as is the case throughout the North American continent, they will be v.h.f.-stereo stations. I hope that he will also say that we will have infinitely more stations and that they will be serving infinitely smaller communities.

Mr. Whitehead: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the White Paper has said that there will be medium-wave back-up for all these stations. Commercial profit lies with the transistor audience and so on. Does he seriously believe that once it has got its hands into that gravy bowl any commercial


radio station would give it up voluntarily and go back to v.h.f. only?

Mr. Gorst: I believe that the thickness of the gravy to which the hon. Gentleman referred will not be served out in quite that liberal a proportion.
I come now to the subject of the I.B.A. itself. I have only one observation on this. From the contents of the White Paper it seems that far too many decisions will be left to the I.B.A. It may well be argued that there is a great deal of detail that is purely administrative in character. But a great deal of that administrative detail is also political in character. It is the political matters which this House ought to be discussing. For example, if 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom will not be covered by these stations, that is a political matter of great interest to 30 per cent. of our population. But the I.B.A. will apparently be the judge of which parts of the country will or will not be able to have commercial local radio, which areas are to be selected, and whether certain areas will be grouped together or separate. These are administrative matters, but I suggest that my right hon. Friend will get an awful lot of Parliamentary Questions in due course as to why there is not a radio station at Scunthorpe or wherever it may be.
Questions such as the limitation of hours and the limitation of the amount of advertising are administrative matters. But they are also limitations on the right to communicate, and this is another reason why the House should also be discussing such matters.
I come to the central news organisation. I do not believe that any of the three choices offered in the White Paper are in the least acceptable. The function of local radio is to highlight local matters. Why impose an expensive national structure which is appropriate to a national service? Radio is a medium for hot news. Warm news, if I may coin a phrase, belongs to the pictorial and printed media. Radio needs hot news, and not only in the morning; it has to be different hot news at noon, in the afternoon and at night. It has to be updated all the time. "Man Dies", is hot news, but the effect of his death upon his family and information about where he was born and so

on is warm news which belongs to the newspapers.
In Canada, nine out of ten people first hear major and international news on the radio. It may be 20 years since Canadian newspapers regarded it as their job to get news scoops. They leave that to radio. This is one of the prime responsibilities of the radio medium. So why impose what is basic to commercial success, namely, the provision of a news service? Why impose it legislatively when it will be good business anyhow? Without a good news service, local radio stations in other parts of the world fold up. Above all, why impose a national and international news service on a system which is parochial by its nature, or ought to be parochial if it is to be called "local".

Mr. Chataway: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point. Since he is expressing admiration for some of the aspects of North American commercial radio and a number of the American stations, would he not agree that the best local stations in the United States draw their national and international news from such first-class news organisations as C.B.S., N.B.C. and Westinghouse? Would he not want to see local stations here with equal access to news services of that kind much more than to the rip-and-read services?

Mr. Gorst: I would agree with that. The only area in which I would disagree with my right hon. Friend is as to whether these sources should be imposed on the franchise holder or whether he should be free to choose the arrangements he makes. I do not see why a station operator should not go to the Press Association, Reuters or any of the other news agencies. It would not be possible in any bulletin to contain more than the news headlines and it is the rôle of radio to give those headlines. The Press will follow with the details. This can come from a rip-and-read service without detracting from the quality of the service, because the quality involves immediacy, flexibility and accuracy.
My right hon. Friend and the Government are rightly concerned with the effect of these proposals on newspapers. The Press has a valuable contribution to make. I have always been one of those who have urged that they should be involved up to the point of there being


no monopoly of the media communications, but that is different from saying that the Press should be involved because they have a contribution to make. It is a very different thing to give them a right as is outlined in the White Paper:
… local newspapers with a circulation which is significant in relation to the population of a local station's transmission area will have the right to acquire an interest in it, whether or not they form part of the company awarded the contract.
I fear that we shall create, not a right, but a privilege. I should like to mention some of the questions which arise. What will be the cost of purchasing this right? Who will decide at what price the right is to be exercised? Will it be the seller, the authority, or the newspaper seeking to acquire it? Will it be transferable and, if so, on what conditions? When can the option be exercised—before the process of application, during it or afterwards; and, if afterwards, for how long? If this right and privilege is to be accorded to the Press, why not to the cinema whose advertising will be affected? Why not to the billboard owners? Why not to the television companies? Why not to the musicians? After all, if work opportunities lie significantly within a station's transmission area the musicians' livelihoods will be affected. Why should they not have a right to acquire an interest? I hope my right hon. Friend will look carefully at this new right which is being conferred upon the Press. It is certainly not a right which was conferred on the Press at the time when television was first opened up to competition.
There is another point on the subject of rights which I should like my right hon. Friend to bear in mind. This is the adverse effect it is already having on a number of people who, in a very modest way, have an interest in applying for a franchise merely in one isolated area. Most of the arrangements in the case of the people to whom I am referring have been established for some time, and for reasons we all understand, have included a local newspaper group, but these consortia are now finding that their arrangements are coming unstuck. The previously mild Pressmen are now regarding themselves as the aldermen of radio. The Press lords, indeed even the Press squirearchy, have become the self-appointed second-tier radio station selectariat. They

are standing aside and saying, "We will pick and choose who are to be our colleagues because the thing cannot go ahead without us." They are choosing, sifting, appointing and dictating terms. In a short space of time we shall find that the I.B.A. will inherit a fait accompli. The I.B.A. will be told who is to be the successful applicant for Radio Scunthorpe.

Mr. Robert Cooke: What is to prevent a consortia putting in for the franchise of one of these stations and saying, "We have not tied ourselves up with the local Press. We are going to provide a first-rate service". If the right hon. Gentleman gives them the franchise, why cannot they come in?

Mr. Gorst: Look at the White Paper.

Mr. Chataway: What my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has suggested is possible and intended under the White Paper. Just as the winning franchise for Yorkshire Television was subsequently required to include the Yorkshire Post because the I.T.A. believed that the Yorkshire Post should be involved, so in this case it is envisaged, that the winning franchise would thereafter be required to release a certain proportion of the equity to local newspapers.

Mr. Gorst: I hope that what my hon. Friend says is exactly how the matter will work out, but there is a strong feeling abroad among the less powerful people who wish to be involved in local radio that Messrs. "Associated-Thomson-Beaverbrook" have already got the situation sewn-up.
On the subject of media, one wonders how the television companies will do. Despite the assurances that have been given, it is hard to resist the feeling that the Newcastle Radio Ltd. of the future will be a mixture of Thomson and Tyne-Tees or that the Voice of London will be our old friends Father Thames married to Associated Newspapers or somebody similar. Equally, it is very hard to believe that Birmingham Broadcasting Ltd. will not be our old friends A.T.V.-cum-Post. Will these notional tie-ups precede the I.B.A.? The newspaper dominance which is now beginning to be felt at this stage will continue, in my view, as long as the rights issue mentioned in the White Paper remains a part


of the proposals. By all means let the Press and television take part in this new medium, but let it do so on its merits and not as of right.

Mr. Proudfoot: Would my hon. Friend also agree that certain companies are able to hide what can be called market research in getting ready to apply for licences, whereas the absolute beginners in the field, the small people in other parts of the country, would have to use their own capital to undertake the same research?

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I am grateful to him.
I should like to turn to the unanswered questions. First, there is the question of needle time. Even if music is to support news and not news to support music, there must be a solution to the problem of needle time and it is a solution that is required before we have to consider legislation—just in case, as a long-stop, it is necessary to legislate on this matter. I urge my right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to how the matter is to be dealt with. I also urge him not to leave it to the I.B.A. to negotiate on behalf of programme contractors.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a back-bencher to make a winding-up speech so early in the debate? The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for 40 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order; but it is a point.

Mr. Gorst: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance. I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion as rapidly as I can. Nevertheless, it might be helpful if I were to enumerate the unanswered questions.
On the question of hardware, there is no explanation of why it is necessary for the I.B.A. to own a transmitter when, in mobile radio, it is not necessary for the Post Office to own transmitters. I hope the answer will not be that the B.B.C. needs all the best medium wave sites because this will leave out, for example, what happens to v.h.f., which may well be in the hands of private owners. If

my right hon. Friend already knows the sites, perhaps he could tell us which areas they will serve, although I understand that this is a matter to be left to the I.B.A.
Can he also tell us how much advertising will be permitted on the new medium? Is it to be six minutes, as on independent television, nine minutes as permitted in the Isle of Man; or will it be up to a maximum of 16 minutes, as is the case in other parts of the world? Unless we have an answer on this subject, it will be difficult for anyone to do any sums to know whether it is worth making an application for a franchise.
What precisely does the White Paper mean by limitation of the number of stations in which any one person can have an interest?
Finally, I would deal with the suggestion which is sometimes heard that commercial radio is a pollution of the ether; that it is some form of evil public nuisance. This country is a democracy. In a democracy people have the right to choose whether leisure will be spent culturally or less culturally. One man's poison is another man's pleasure. If radio is a pollutant, it is the only known form of pollution which can be eradicated at the flick of a switch.
I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they live and let live; that they let listen or just switch off.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) if I do not follow him in detail, or perhaps quite so much in length, into the points he made. I take very much the lesson of what happens when one runs out of needle time in the House.
The Times, on the appearance of the White Paper, described it as a bad case for a bad policy. I very much regret that that description can also be applied to the speech of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in opening the debate. It seemed to me that he was attempting to throw the onus of proof on some alternative system—and it was an interesting slip that he asked us to justify an alternative commercial system, when we have no intention of doing any such


thing—rather than defending the White Paper.
None of us on this side is necessarily wedded to the present set-up of sound broadcasting, nor to the present monopoly of the B.B.C But we particularly feel that in this area, with rapid technological change, there is a need to make haste slowly. That is why many people involved in broadcasting, who were especially concerned about the aspects of change which were rapidly altering the whole structure of broadcasting technology, pressed for a committee of inquiry, and I speak as someone who was professionally broadcasting for over 10 years before entering the House. That is why we welcomed the death-bed repentance of the previous Government in setting up the Annan Committee. That may have been very late in the day, but I prefer repentance on the death bed to a betrayal from the cradle, which is what we have had from the present Government. One of the most foolish and short-sighted actions of the right hon. Gentleman was so peremptorily to wind up the Annan Committee.
We are not looking merely at the future structure of television—whether the present system of commercial television is viable, what future form the B.B.C. should have, is the B.B.C. now too large, is it employing the licence as it should? We are also looking at the whole disposition of radio. The question of television and the renegotiation of the Copenhagen Agreements for wavelengths all must come to a head by 1976.
Therefore, it is absurd to echo, as the right hon. Gentleman did, the opinions of the Prime Minister, speaking in the debate on the proposals, "Broadcasting in the Seventies", that there was no need for a committee of inquiry, that we should not always be pulling up the tree to look at the roots. That is not in the ruthless, abrasive, radical tradition that we are told this Government are attempting to set. The machinery of central Government and great Departments of State appears to be overhauled and knocked about every day of the week, but the system of broadcasting and everything to do with it, and with that scarce public asset of the wavelengths is sacrosanct, at least when it looks as though some people will be able to get in on this scene to make a profit. We deplore that. The White

Paper fortifies our belief that argument, discussion and investigation should have come before the ideology of profit and notions of private cupidity in this matter.
What is wrong with the White Paper? As many on this side have said, the assumption that competition provides all the virtues, and has done so in television, which is mentioned in the introduction, seems to us to be dubious. There should be other forms of competition. As we were challenged by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall mention later just what they might be.
We are also somewhat shattered to see that the White Paper assumes—and this is news for the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts)—that there will not be the further 20 local radio stations for the B.B.C., and, therefore, the minority services so extolled in the White Paper and so recommended to the B.B.C. are not to be extended to the Principality of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—or Cornwall, as the hon. Member for Hendon, North said in one of his more powerful remarks. We feel that the B.B.C. is thus not only being deprived of producing its minority service all over the country but also unfairly deprived of extending the advantages of back-up on the medium wave.
I take the view of Mr. Hughie Green that medium wave is important. That is not the view now expressed by the hon. Member for Hendon, North, though some of his publications take that view. The medium wave should not be kept as it is until such time as the commercial stations are in being. There is suspicion on this side of the House. It may be that the commercial stations will be launched on the medium waves first. I should not like that to happen. We want to see those facilities which I believe are already available utilised for medium-wave transmission by the B.B.C. local radio stations. I believe that there is already at Derby a low-power medium-wave transmitter awaiting assembly, and that at Leeds there is a low-power medium-wave Third Programme booster station which is not used. That unused transmitter could be switched to the medium wave now.
We are told that we must wait for international applications and negotiations. But what we are really waiting for is for the commercial stations to get on


the air. With due respect to the hon. Member for Hendon, North, we are slightly suspicious of the motives of some of those who want to get on the air in the commercial network so quickly.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) extolled the virtues of competition. I want to quote a pamphlet on commercial radio published by that excellent organisation which has good premises and usually muddled conclusions, the Bow Group. The pamphlet quoted one of the leading figures in the campaign for commercial radio as saying:
Paternalistic systems are all designed to prevent people who like pap from getting it. The vast majority of listeners are morons.
That, in essence, is the alarming philosophy of many of the people who are wanting to get into commercial radio, who have put up a great deal of money and have put a great deal of time into investigating the most feasible commercial propositions for commercial broadcasting.
One thing that we would like to see, therefore, is a much clearer definition from the Minister than he has given so far—and this applies to Lord Denham as well—of precisely what the network situation is to be. Is it to be a situation in which the back-up facilities and syndicated facilities being assembled by Mr. Hughie Green and his associates are to provide the sustaining flow of programmes, so that only a modicum of local news and effort will be provided by the various radio stations? The White Paper is not specific enough about this.
I hope to show that there is not the endless fountain of revenue in the commercial set-up which is believed by some of those who wish to get into it. I believe that once they are in a position of financial squeeze, there will be great pressure on the network system from people like Mr. Green for what he calls the "patronage system"—which is just another name for sponsorship, which has been a deplorable system wherever it has occurred. I want to see much stronger guarantees that we shall not eventually have a "patronage system".
The hon. Member for Hendon, North talked optimistically of a figure of advertising revenue approaching £35 million. I do not believe it will be anything like that. I believe there is grave doubt

whether it will even come to £10 million—perhaps even £5 million or £6 million. The Financial Times, which is a newspaper more concerned with keeping the gravy train on the rails than with its destination, has referred to a figure of 25p per thousand. The hon. Gentleman quoted no figure between 10p and 25p or so which would give us the revenue he suggested from six minutes an hour for advertising, which perhaps we would find more acceptable than the 12 minutes an hour which gives the lucrative revenue in Canada. On that basis, the small town station would gross about £27,000 annually, and that is not the sort of revenue on which one can run anything like a decent local service.

Mr. Gorst: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I referred to a figure between £20 million and £25 million after doing the subtractions—not £35 million.

Mr. Whitehead: I apologise for the mishearing. I still feel that the hon. Gentleman is greatly exaggerating the possible revenue.
When we look at the kind of proposals being assembled for this new medium of local radio, we see that what is involved is quite different from the B.B.C.'s local radio stations, which cost roughly £100,000 each to run annually. The local radio station in Derby, which has just begun, has a staff of 23 and has on the whole a balanced output. Yet even that is operating on a shoe-string, as the main union at the B.B.C., the Association of Broadcasting Staffs, never ceases to point out. These stations do not pay fees and operate on a low scale in terms of what I think operating costs should be. For commercial radio stations a much lower operating level with far fewer people is proposed. What is involved is not the kind of station which could be used for the balanced programmes which in an ideal world the hon. Member for Hendon, North would like to see.
I want to quote the brochure recently issued by the Marconi Company. I believe that the Pye Group has issued a similar circular. The Marconi brochure says, in its introduction to the basic set which it is offering for under £5,000, including all the accessories and bits and pieces,
Basically the broadcasting time will probably be devoted to records and announcements


with minimum programme staff. It is essentially a one-man operation of programmes. With their high quality, design and performance, our machines are robust enough for the disc-jockey type of operation.
Is that what we really want? It is obvious that that is what the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) wants. But I do not believe it is the kind of ideal being presented to the House by other hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair. Obviously, some of the larger centres will have stations on the scale of the B.B.C.'s stations, but for a radio station at, for example, Penzance, one would not expect to employ 23 people. Yet surely some of these smaller stations would be just as good and balanced as the larger.

Mr. Whitehead: We shall learn what "Radio Brighouse" will do from the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough.
I want to follow the hon. Member for Hendon, North, in his extolling of the commercial radio station par excellence. I do not believe that any station can be run in a proper manner and give a proper balance on the basis of a disc jockey rushing around doing everything, perhaps with a trained chimpanzee putting on the records. Even Manx Radio operates on conditions which are not acceptable in this country or to the union. It has been operating on minimum needle time. Its example is not a healthy one for its audience or for any areas with 100,000 people or fewer. I do not believe the money is there.
We have been painted a picture of a helicopter hovering over traffic and giving reports. I wonder whether hon. Members know how much it costs to hire and maintain a helicopter in operation. I do not, in any case, think Mr. Hughie Green will be in a helicopter over the traffic giving reports. Doubtless, he will be in a studio assembling an array of talent for his syndicated programmes to the network.
Again I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, North, but when we come to the question of the new service I remind the House that he said that with Mr. Hughie Green as a friend one does not need enemies. But he is inextricably

wedded in this business to Mr. Green. They are propagandists in the same cause.

Mr. Gorst: I am going to get a divorce.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman may be tired of Mr. Green but what we are trying to see is that Mr. Green's concept of local radio is not extended to the country. I quote Mr. Green's proposals in which he poured scorn on the idea of I.T.N. He said:
I.T.N. is a pale imitation of the B.B.C.
Surely all of us agree that one of the things which have undoubtedly been a success in Independent Television is the I.T.N. One of the reasons for its success is that it has been largely independent of the programme companies and, therefore, not dependent on the profit motive. It is dependent on the direct administration only of the I.T.A. It has not been dependent on the companies themselves and on their concern with revenue, the maximising of profits and so on.
Mr. Green wants a system of syndicated news presented by actors. He feels that actors will be able to "ham" it up a lot more and make the news more exciting. He says that conventional British news reading lacks urgency and drama. If we are really talking about competition here, it is not urgency and drama which are wanted but genuine alternatives of hard news services, whether they be the local services which the hon. Gentleman was talking about or national services.
I do not believe we shall ever get this if this unfortunate White Paper is translated into legislation, unless the first of the three choices which the right hon. Gentleman outlined today—that is, for something like I.T.N.—is followed and not some stitched together, rip and pull service, put together by the news agencies which are available to the local newspapers.
Here I come to another flaw in the notion of competition as presented in the White Paper. That is that if we are to have the local newspapers brought into this business, if local newspapers are to have a mandatory right to a share of the control over the other competing source of local news in an area, then we automatically destroy competition in


news-getting and news presentation from the start. Those of us who are concerned, as some of us are, about the bias of many local newspapers—I do not have any particular ones in mind—would be very concerned if the alternative source of news from the local radio station in the area were to be dependent upon control from the local newspaper.

Mr. Chataway: Does the hon. Member think that national newspapers which have minority stakes in television, just as local newspapers would have here, have been able to influence programme content, current affairs and so on?

Mr. Whitehead: No, because I.T.N. is a separate organisation. But there is great reason for concern about the kind of influence which some people have tried to exert over the television companies from their position as Press magnates. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we last clashed in this House on the issue of the controlling interest in London Weekend Television, which was being sought by Mr. Rupert Murdoch of the Sun newspaper. Of course there are grounds for concern here.
If I had to take a specific example, according to the White Paper the Beaverbrook Press would be allowed, because it owns the local newspaper in London, the Evening Standard, to buy into a London station. If it were buying into a London news service station I would be somewhat alarmed. The result, it seems, would be an undue degree of accretion of power, whereas the right hon. Gentleman has been presenting a model of competition.
Most of us have some notion of what we hope for from better alternatives. If there is to be a commercial system, we would like it to be a commercial system following the famous recommendation No. 43 of the Pilkington Report so that central control was exercised over national advertising, in this case by the I.B.A. We would like the I.B.A. to be a broker for national advertising. We would like to see local radio associations which were able to exert direct control over each individual local commercial station, which I fear the authority will not be able to do.
In passing, I pay a small tribute to the I.T.A. and say that under its new Director-General it has exerted itself rather more sharply than was ever the case in the past. It is undoubtedly true that the whole story of Independent Television, as I have seen it from the inside, has been one long story of the Authority always two or three jumps behind those in the companies who were trying to put profit before programmes, or, in other words, were cutting corners in such a way that the Authority constantly tried to intervene, was constantly brushed off and was never able to make the right intervention in time. I do not want to see that happen to the I.B.A.
Other plans have been put forward. There is one which has been devised by Birmingham University, and a similar scheme has since been aired by Cambridge University, for university stations financed partly by advertising and partly by the kind of revenue they might receive from the sale of their programmes elsewhere, given the kind of outlook that would be possible in a town like Cambridge, covering the whole range of the town and the university.
I have just come back from a visit to the Netherlands; I spent the weekend studying the Dutch system. There are advantages there. In some ways the Dutch system comes very close to some of the things my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has been talking about, dealing with local interest groups and giving more access to the media without filtering through a broadcasting élite. If there was a genuine concern for experiment in the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman is bringing before the House he would set aside at least some of these franchises for genuine experiment, for transmitters and studios owned by the I.B.A. and rented out to these various interests and culture groups, on an experimental basis so that they could put over the sort of programmes they wanted, genuinely widening the experience of that area.
Their Lordships, in another place, have tried to avert their eyes from the awful logic of profit maximisation. Lord Eccles has told us that because he likes the B.B.C. it is almost certain that the masses will not. Lord Denham has told us that he goes out to make the coffee


when the advertisements come on. They therefore see no harm in the system. Lord Hailsham has been quoted by my hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate as giving what, in all our debates in this House and in another place on the question of competition and the dangers of the intrusion of advertisements, is probably the classic definition of the dangers of the latter. We are living in a world of technological explosion and widening affluence. This is influencing broadcasting, and it is rightly said on both sides of the House that there should be wider diversification.
1 do not think a diversity of culture necessarily comes from a diversification of profits, by the forces of commerce always providing the only criteria of competition, which I regret to say has been the view time after time on the other side of the House. We want to see wider outlets for self-financing local radio. We want to see its standards watched and guided by the I.B.A. in a way which I do not think will be possible under this White Paper. That would provide a healthy new strand in the plurality of our democracy.
It is in that spirit that I beg the Government to think again about this White Paper, which The Times has described as a:
… proposal … based on diverting advertising revenue from information to entertainment media. It is ironic that a Government whose very name implies a desire to preserve cultural values should so firmly insist on so undesirable a waste of money.
A long time has passed since the minority report of Beveridge, and it would be wholly out of order for me to raise that now—this trickle of the competitive ideal which began there and which has no become a mighty torrent with such proposals as this. We do not want it to be diverted purely into a cascade of private gain. Even for this Government, and certainly for the right hon. Gentleman, the posture of being a hard-faced man is difficult to maintain all the time. I would be sorry if the Government forgot that they were dealing with a public asset which should not be approached solely by the ideology of private greed.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The speech of the hon. Member for

Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) had a slight pre-1956 vintage about it, in that many of the complaints and suspicions he voiced about commercial radio were the kind of doubts and suspicions that people on his side of the House raised at the time Independent Television came into being. Subsequent events have shown many of those fears to be largely groundless.
I give a warm welcome to the White Paper and my right hon. Friend's speech. It was a good start to our discussions which will put the bones on this structure of commercial radio. I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend upon his discussions with the B.B.C., during which it seemed the B.B.C. discovered frequencies on the medium wave for a long time it had been denying were available. This in itself is a step forward.
It is clear that, following the growth of television, radio took very much a back seat in the B.B.C. Things have been changing recently, perhaps under the impetus of commercial radio, perhaps for other reasons. Undoubtedly there are signs of new life.
I have not heard many programmes of the local B.B.C. stations; the only station I can hear is London. They do not attract me as much as do the B.B.C. national programmes, and I suspect that Radio London does not have as large a share of the London audience as it should have. This reinforces my doubts about whether the B.B.C. is the ideal body to run local radio. The B.B.C. has a different approach. If I remember correctly, the B.B.C. in its evidence to the Pilkington Committee said that there was no great demand for local radio in this country, but, if there were, the B.B.C. should run it. That is not exactly a growth attitude.
The decision of the Government to break the B.B.C. monopoly in sound radio is basically right. The question is whether the Government's proposals are in themselves the right answer. If the result is a commercial system dominated by pop music, the Government will have failed, and we must ensure that that does not happen. There is the opportunity for commercial radio, broadcasting from 60 stations, to achieve a diversity and a mixture which will give a new dimension to radio, and to broadcast programmes


which will be listened to by the housewife, the motorist with a car radio and the teenager. This will give a new dimension to local life, including local news, local advertisements and local personalities. But high standards must be maintained.
The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) asked whether we on this side of the House expected a broad cross-section of community life to be reflected in commercial radio. My answer is, "Yes, we do." Not only is this good business, but it is good for the listener. If the experience of Radio Manx is reflected generally in the country, the programmes should be extremely popular with the listeners, and the I.B.A. will be there as a long-stop.
My hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) asked why it was necessary for national news to be broadcast on local radio. This was my initial reaction; but the answer is that if local commercial radio does not broadcast national news, audiences will at certain times of the day switch to another channel. Furthermore, it is desirable to broadcast national and international news to provide a balanced programme and fill the time schedules. There should be a balance between local and national news, but the most important part of commercial radio will be producing good local news programmes.
I am attracted by the proposal in the White Paper for an all-news station in London, and perhaps in Manchester. I have heard similar programmes in New York which are balanced between news, current affairs discussions and current affairs talks. These programmes are repeated during the day. This gives a new dimension to news coverage and additional opportunities for people who work in the medium.
We have heard during the debate various assessments of William Hardcastle and his programme. Some hon. Members have expressed criticism of and resevations about the William Hardcastle type of programme. I admire it because it has given a new approach to news, but my right hon. Friend is right in saying that William Hardcastle must not have the sole monopoly of this type of programme.

That is why I welcome the all-news radio station broadcasting the views of various people, and I feel sure this would be welcomed by the public. On many occasions I have been infuriated by Hardcastle's programmes, but I nevertheless recognise that they are immensely popular with the public, and have increased the audience at that time of the day.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says about William Hardcastle and the "World at One" programme. Does he know of any programme companies which are presently setting themselves up as producing programmes of this kind? If he does, will he say which they are?

Mr. Mills: There are two answers to that. It is not for Parliament to lay down in legislation what programme companies can and cannot do on this point. I envisage that there might be all-news programmes, extracts from which might be taped by local stations and slotted into their own news programmes at their convenience, or they might switch over at a certain time to the all-news programme to take the news. Those are two alternatives; there may be others.
I apologise for repeating the phrase "new dimension in news" but it expresses what I feel very well. Local stations will provide diversity. There may be a growth of syndicated programmes in the form of plays, short stories, serials, light entertainment. It will be possible to produce these programmes cheaply and to syndicate them on tape for distribution to the programme companies when required.
I am pleased that the White Paper emphasises that the stations must be truly local and not just dressed-up versions of national units. I am glad that we are not to have a national commercial radio station which would merely be a carbon copy of Radio 1 and Radio 2.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North raised several pertinent points about the press, and we shall have to think carefully about this. However, I feel it is basically right to allow local newspapers to be involved in a local radio station. Probably the best way of doing this is to give them the form of option suggested in the White Paper.


The local Press can help by supplying local news. It will be affected financially to a much greater extent than any of the other bodies referred to by my hon. Friend.
It is important to ensure that we do not overload local stations with overheads and unnecessary expenses. We want a "Mini-minor", not necessarily a "Rolls-Royce", set-up. It is easy for Parliament, which tends to think in national terms, to impose on local stations demands which will escalate costs. We must not impose unnecessarily heavy I.B.A. charges and too many rules as to the method of operation.
I did an interview in the United States. At the end of the programme the interviewer switched to reading the advertisement. In fact, he made it up as he went along. I believe that it will be important to encourage such informality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members throw up their hands in horror at the idea of informality.

Mr. McBride: I thought it was only in Ireland that they did that.

Mr. Mills: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has made a joke !

Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously advocating informality such that the news commentator steps over from the editorial columns to the advertising feature without identifying that it is an advertising feature? This is the nadir of the whole concept of bringing advertising into the mass media.

Mr. Mills: I do not want to see two people sitting side by side in a studio, one saying, "I am the man who reads the advertisements" and the other saying, "I do the interviewing", because this duplicates costs. In the United States an interviewer would say, "Now there is an advertising break" and he would read the advertisement. It should not be necessary to have every advertisement approved in advance by a central body. This would add to the cost. The interviewer in the United States must keep within certain prescribed guide lines as to advertisements or he would be in trouble if he does not keep within them. Parliament must not attempt to dot every "i" and cross every "t" as to the method of operating these stations.
Two big questions remain unanswered. The first is the problem of needle time and the position of the Performing Rights Society and of the Musicians' Union. I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the secretary of the Musicians' Union has promised that there will be a reasonably constructive approach. The details must be worked out, but we cannot allow the whole concept of commercial radio to be held back by the activities of any such body.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I do not think that either the Minister or the hon. Gentleman would seek to mislead the House. The National Executive Committee of the Musicians' Union has stated clearly that it is opposed to the whole principle of commercial radio, and has been over the years. The Minister referred earlier to one sentence in a memorandum which was approved by the National Executive Committee and which says:
We shall apply the same criteria to the negotiation of rates for commercial broadcasting as we do to other fields of employment.
I would not want the hon. Gentleman to remain under the impression that the union to which I belong has taken a stance different from that which it has taken over the years, which has been one of opposition to the introduction of commercial radio.

Mr. Mills: I am glad to hear that. I trust that the hon. Gentleman can also assure us that, as I understood my right hon. Friend to say, although the union may not be enthusiastic about the concept it will nevertheless not stand in the way of this development but will talk and do a deal.
The second unanswered question concerns the powers of the I.B.A. I fully understand that a White Paper cannot spell out such matters too precisely, but Parliament will want the details much more precisely in the Bill. The I.B.A. must not be in the position of being able to take decisions which the Minister himself should take.
I strongly welcome the introduction of commercial radio in Britain. I have no personal interest in it. I believe that commercial radio or community radio or local radio can give a new lease of life to broadcasting; and I wish it well.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I shall comment later on the question of needle time raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills).
I begin my speech, as other hon. Members have begun theirs, by declaring an interest, albeit not a financial one. For a number of years I was a working musician and was, as I still am, a paid-up member of the Musicians' Union. Indeed, that union sponsors my presence in the House.
Therefore, during the debate I shall attempt to reflect the interests of the musical profession and of the Musicians' Union on the subject of the White Paper and on the general questions which are involved in any consideration of whether, and if so when, commercial radio should be introduced in Britain.
Musicians are the producers of the largest single element in sound broadcasting. Sound broadcasting could not exist without the product of the musician, whether it be on a gramophone record, a tape or played live. I am sorry that the Minister will not be here—I say at once that I quite understand his reasons for leaving—to listen to the views of the organisation which represents the whole of the musical profession in Britain.
I say at the outset, as I did in a brief intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, that over the years the Musicians' Union has been strongly opposed to the principle of commercial radio. That remains the position today as we debate the White Paper. I should also make it clear that, though the Minister implied that the union was not objecting to the introduction of commercial radio, that is not the case. As would any responsible authority, the union has made it plain that it will treat the negotiation of rates with any future commercial radio authority or radio station in the same way as it would treat negotiations with any other employer.
Contrary to statements which have been made outside this House and which are known to a number of hon. Members, the Musicians' Union has done no deal and has no agreement with any would-be commercial radio operator, should the Government introduce legislation on the subject.
I should explain the reasons why historically and today the Musicians' Union is opposed to the concept of commercial radio. There are, first, the reasons given at the outset of the debate by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). Since a number of hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I shall not take up time by repeating them.
Another specific reason why that union has taken up the attitude that it has towards commercial radio based on income from advertising is that it has made and continues to make on a running basis an assessment of the consequences of the introduction of commercial radio. No commercial radio system in the world, including Canada, to which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) referred, offers any substantial degree of employment for musicians——

Mr. Gorst: Mr. Gorst rose——

Mr. O'Malley: No, I shall not give way now. I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt me in due course. It is not only the situation overseas, about which the union has fully informed itself, that gives concern. There are also the statements and attitudes, both overt and underlying, of a number of people which disturb us. Among them are the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot).
The hon. Member for Belfast, North let the cat out of the bag. A lot of would-be operators want to run commercial stations on the cheap. That is why they want virtually nothing other than gramophone records for the music that they propose to broadcast. That is why the hon. Member for Hendon, North and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough want commercial radio operators to have what is virtually a free hand about needle time. They do not want any standards or central control. Their motive is a simple one. They are concerned not with standards but with the maximisation of profit. I know that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough lost money on his pirate radio venture. It may be that he thinks that he will get it back by means of a commercial radio station. However, we


should not kid each other about the purposes and underlying reason for hon. Members who are involved in would-be projects taking the attitude that they do.

Mr. Gorst: When the hon. Gentleman refers to Canada, he is mistaken. I have seen and heard in Canada a talent library of records produced by a non-profit-making organisation especially for commercial radio in Canada and having very much in mind the giving of employment to musicians. Certainly I concede the necessity to ensure that fair and reasonable arrangements are made to protect the livelihoods of musicians in this country.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman is known to be connected with the Local Radio Association. I can hardly see a way of squaring that declared intention, which is also the declared intention of the pamphlet produced by the Local Radio Association, with the desire of would-be commercial radio operators to have virtually unlimited needle time.
When hon. Gentlemen opposite discuss the North American radio market, it becomes clear that they know nothing about it. I have discussed the subject of radio in the United States and Canada with union officials who operate in those countries. They do not want the same rosy view. I accept that the position is infinitely worse in the United States than in Canada. However, it bears no relation to the kind of employment opportunities offered by the B.B.C., and that is one reason why the Musicians' Union has always opposed the introduction of commercial radio. It has made its assessment of the consequences from what has happened overseas and from statements made by would-be commercial radio operators.
If anyone is capable of letting the cat out of the bag, it is the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. He is quite blunt about it. He must cause a great deal of worry to commercial radio operators. At a recent seminar, I understand that he made it plain that, if necessary, he intends to take on the Musicians' Union. He has said that he will break the union's monopoly powers. That is an example of the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are anxious to see the introduction of commercial radio.
Another reason why the Musicians' Union takes the view that it does is that

it has seen, as anyone can see, the large numbers of estimates made by various organisations, individuals and Press correspondents of the finances of commercial radio stations on the pattern envisaged in the White Paper. It is clear from estimates such as that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) referred that it is possible to set up a commercial radio station, with all the necessary equipment, for £5,000, failing which Pye will supply a caravan in which it will be possible to operate with one man and a dog for much the same figure—[Interruption.] I always welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough in our debates, because he never seeks to hide anything.
We see the desire of people to move into this business with a small capital investment. Then we are told that the operating costs of a station will be between £50,000 and £75,000 a year. We see the size of stations envisaged by the Local Radio Association, of which the hon. Member for Hendon, North is the secretary. Seeing those facts, it becomes perfectly clear that there will be no money left for the employment of musicians. There cannot be. We have all the evidence of the B.B.C.s local stations. We always knew that, on the level of income that the B.B.C. had, there would be virtually no live employment for musicians in local radio. It is to be hoped that the situation will improve. It was a gesture of good will on the part of the Musicians' Union to agree in the first place to the B.B.C. setting up local stations and the tapping of the national network. That was done on the understanding that at some time in the future there would be employment opportunities for musicians. However, on the kind of capital expenditure envisaged, there will be no money available for that purpose.
We do not need to do many sums to realise that as these local radio stations will have to make copyright payments to the Performing Rights Society, the P.P.L. and other organisations, they will have nothing left for the employment of performers. The hon. Member for Hendon, North indicated this clearly when in an unguarded moment—he is a somewhat different animal from the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough—he said that musicians in various areas would find


that their livelihoods would be affected by the introduction of commercial radio stations. The Musician's Union is capable of making this kind of assessment, and it agrees.
The third reason that the union is opposed to commercial radio is that the White Paper gives little reason for it to change its mind. The Minister, as every Member of Parliament and every broadcasting correspondent in London knows, has already been defeated by outside pressures and by the commercial pressures of his own back benchers.
I have been concerned with putting down Motions in this House. I know why Motions appear asking the House to take note of White Papers rather than to approve them. I have gone through this kind of exercise when in Government. The reason is clear. The Minister is having trouble with his own back benchers. The trouble is coming from hon. Members like those for Hendon, North and for Brighouse and Spenborough, who have been saying, "We are not having this kind of thing." It is evident that that is what has happened.
This afternoon the Minister—I say this in a kindly manner—gave a good imitation of a confident man presenting his own proposals instead of proposals imposed upon him by the Cabinet and by the pressures of hon. Gentlemen opposite, not one who had been humiliated by his Cabinet in turning his proposals down. Therefore, because the White Paper is so vague and the Motion is on the "take note" basis rather than approving it, which is the more normal process, we can have no confidence that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to withstand the pressures to which he is already obviously and manifestly subject. None of my fears about commercial radio is allayed by pious statements in the White Paper when I realise the underlying situation and pressures.
The Government have resolved to introduce commercial radio, perhaps on the pattern laid down in the White Paper. But I should not be surprised to see a Bill which differs significantly from the White Paper, because I suspect that the Minister will be pushed around in the next few months by some of his hon. Friends and some of the commercial

pressure groups. In those circumstances, the Musicians' Union will take all possible steps in its power to protect the interests of the musical profession, interests which reflect to a large extent the public interest, too.
The B.B.C., as a major user of music, has publicly acknowledged its responsibility to maintain musical standards and to play a rôle in the maintenance of a musical profession through the employment of 500 members of staff orchestras, by agreeing to provide a substantial amount of casual employment, and by setting up the training orchestra in Bristol. We expect a similar response from any other organisation wanting to set up in the broadcasting sphere.
The profession is and has been facing a period of great difficulty because of technological change. We should not hide our heads in the sand and object to technological change. That is not a useful or a desirable attitude. However, the House should bear in mind, when considering the musical profession and how it can be affected by the introduction of commercial radio, that the development of broadcasting has meant a decline in local audiences and live music halls with the closure of theatres all over the country. There have been problems as a result of the development of broadcasting because of the extended use of recorded music, whether by gramophone records or on tape. Therefore, over the years—this is a continuing process—there has been a sharp decline in the employment available in, for example, hotels, ballrooms and restaurants.
If we regard recording or session musicians in London as the cream of the profession and at the top of a pyramid resting on a broad base of other musicians, during the whole of the postwar period, and indeed before, there has been a narrowing of the base. As an ex-employer of musicians, I find that in some areas when I look for brass players, trumpet and trombone players, they are the same people I should have got 20 years ago. They are going bald and getting older. The young ones are not coming along to take their place. Therefore, simply from the point of view of broadcasting standards, there is a need for employment opportunities wherever they can be found to maintain this broad base in order to get the cream of the session


musicians who turn out the best music we can produce.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Surely this is not a good argument. The fact is that all these younger musicians and younger audiences prefer something else. I know that the hon. Gentleman's party is deeply addicted to the tradition of brass bands, and so on, but times are changing. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly argue that the total number of musicians is falling.

Mr. O'Malley: I do not want to be unkind or arrogant, but the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he knows nothing about the entertainment business. The situation is not as he described. If he is talking about groups—I saw the whole business growing up—there is enormous pressure on the activities of live musicians of this kind of all standards because of the growth of discotheques, and so on. The problem is that a live group, if we are talking of pop music, cannot normally make the same kind of noise that we get from that same group on a record because of the development of the techniques of discontinuous recording.
The base is narrowing. The B.B.C. recognises the problem and has acknowledged that it has a responsibility and is trying to help. Therefore, we would take the view as a musical profession that commercial radio operators should have a similar responsibility. We would expect employment opportunities from them with specially produced material for use on their programmes. We would expect employment opportunities not only in London, but throughout the whole country. This would help to maintain a broader based profession from which the highest standard players will eventually develop and from which the best of the gramophone records are developed.

Mr. Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what would be fair, reasonable and acceptable as employment opportunities to remove the opposition of the Musicians Union to commercial radio?

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman must think me very naïve. He knows that this is a matter for negotiation. However, I shall have something to say about

it. We would want employment opportunities. Versions of compensation which will pay one to keep off the air or give one a proportion of the take simply are not on. They are not a starter for negotiations. I suggest that commercial radio must show the same responsibility that the B.B.C. has shown about providing work.
The ability to do that could be increased in several ways. First, the White Paper says in paragraph 12 that
the financial arrangement must be such as to attract broadcasters of ability, to support programmes of quality …
I agree with that. I hesitate to call these local radio stations, because they are sub-regional rather than local, but they will not be able to attract broadcasters of ability, or musical performers and actors of ability, to support programmes of quality unless they are big enough to provide themselves with the necessary finance to support such enterprises. The kind of small radio station referred to by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proud-foot) rules that out.

Mr. Ernie Money: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the B.B.C.'s responsibility. At the moment the B.B.C. is unable to provide a service in some areas, either because they are "mush" areas, or for other reasons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not rule out the possibility of a local station for places the size of Ipswich, where we cannot receive Radio 1. Many people are not getting any form of adequate broadcasting service.

Mr. O'Malley: That is not a matter for me but for the Minister.

Mr. Richard: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the fact that the B.B.C. has made available some wavelengths for possible commercial radio will make the situation worse, not better.

Mr. O'Malley: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention.
There is a need to lay down reasonable studio standards so that live performances can be recorded in the locality, whoever owns the studio. We should not allow to be developed a system under which all that is necessary is a caravan, £6,000


worth of capital equipment, a turntable and a microphone, and off someone goes. That is not enough, and the new broadcasting authority should lay down criteria and minima for studios.
Third, it is inevitable that there will be national networking, even if it is discontinuous networking. The Musicians' Union feels that there should be written into the Bill an obligation for local radio stations, one way or another—and it may be partly through networking—to use a specified proportion of specially produced material under the provisions of the I.B.A.
Lastly, my union takes a rather different view on the subject of advertising and sponsorship from that taken by many hon. Members of both sides of the House, and by many outside commentators. My union's view is:
Given that the Government is determined to introduce commercial radio and assuming that there will be satisfactory provisions to secure social responsibility in its operation, there seems to us to be no virtue in distinguishing between spot advertising and carefully controlled 'patronage'.
I leave that with the Minister to consider, because I think that it will be the subject of a further discussion at a later stage.
I now turn to the question of needle time. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have the mistaken impression that all that someone has to do is to negotiate with the Musicians' Union. That is not true. The negotiating body is Phonographic Performance Ltd., which represents the record companies, but there is consultation with the Musicians' Union on the subject. When, a few years ago, the B.B.C. wanted needle time increased, the matter was discussed at length with my union, and the B.B.C. gave substantial guarantees about live employment.
The whole question of needle time is one of negotiation, but if the starting point is the local radio association's starting point of wanting unlimited needle time, of wanting to use music for 39 minutes in the hour, all off records, that would necessitate a 65 per cent. needle time agreements, and my union would fight it. It would be a lengthy fight, and a costly one, and I therefore tell the House that if someone who wants to get local radio stations off the ground starts with that attitude, there can be little progress.
The Minister has made it clear that he does not take that view about needle time. When speaking to the Commercial Radio Seminar on 27th April he made it plain that there would not be unlimited needle time, and that the aspirations of some of the commercial operators would remain unsatisfied.
I think that I should explain why musicians take the view that they do. Most of them are paid a session fee for making a record, and that is all that they receive for it. They do not want compensation for the fact that they are not playing, but why should someone turn out, earn a session fee, make a record or tape, and then stand by and allow that record or tape to be used indiscriminately? Why should he have to listen to his recording being played while he is at home as an unemployed person? He may have to listen to a recording that he made 12 months ago or, in some cases, 15 or 20 years ago.
I said earlier that the question of needle time is one of negotiation, but we must be quite clear about who will be negotiating. It will not be the Minister. One hon. Gentleman suggested that it ought to be, but it will not, and it should be written into the Bill very clearly that the negotiations will take place between the bodies concerned with the copyright on the one hand, and the broadcasting authority on the other, for the simple reason that the broadcasting authority will have to consider wider criteria than merely making a fast buck.
The broadcasting authority has to consider the whole question of social responsibility, and Lord Denham said on 19th May, 1971:
… I imagine that negotiations would be conducted either by the I.B.A., on behalf of programme companies, or by a representative body of the stations …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 510.]
I hope that Lord Denham will make it quite clear to the Minister that we want the Bill to ensure that responsibility for negotiations on this matter rests with the broadcasting authority, rather than with the stations concerned.
I doubt whether, in the long term, even if the Minister stands up to the pressures under which he is under now, commercial radio will respect either public interest, or the interests of the musical profession. The motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite are narrow. I do not blame them for that,


but the fact is that they are concerned with how much they can make, rather than with what they can give.
If the Government persist with these proposals, my union will look for real safeguards to be written into the Bill, to avoid the kind of situation that we see in many other parts of the world. As the representative of the musical profession, the Musicians' Union will fight in any way that it can to avoid being swamped by commercial interests.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: It has given me great pleasure to nod vigorous agreement every time hon. Members opposite have talked about people lining their pockets. That is only another expression for economic growth. Among those lining their pockets are the tax man, the Musicians' Union and Equity, among others.
I was a radio pirate, and I was delighted to be one because we have helped to break the B.B.C. monopoly. I hate monopoly, and State monopolies are always much the worst. I greet the White Paper on only one score—that my right hon. Friend is breaking a monopoly. But he is hedged in by the engines of restriction and monopoly, among which are the B.B.C., N.P.A., G.P.O., P.P.L., P.P.C., M.U., P.R.S., I.T.V., Equity, Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. These are the people who have been putting pressure on the Minister. Before the war the Director-General of the B.B.C. put it more plainly in a letter to The Times that monopoly was not in the interests of the people employed in the industry, and that includes musicians.
No fortunes will be made in commercial radio and there will be no licences to print money. The White Paper makes sure of that. But what disturbs me is that the White Paper suggests that commercial radio stations should operate in areas by themselves and not with commercial competition. Commercial stations should compete against commercial stations.
I am worried about the newspaper idea. If I and some friends got together to apply for a licence and the local paper decided that it wanted it, it could probably get in at zero cost, because the White Paper says so. I am also disturbed at the idea that the I.T.V. companies

should be able to get in on the Act. An anti-trust case is going on in America at the moment because one company has a collection of radio stations, television stations and newspapers in one area. As I said, I am against monopolies.
An incredible amount of nonsense is talked about wavelengths. My right hon. Friend admits that he knows nothing about this subject. I have talked to some top executives of the B.B.C. and places like that who freely admit that they know nothing about it either. They all take their advice from the G.P.O. and the B.B.C. itself—both nationalised monopolies. I suggest that they they do not get the straight talking that they should from those people. Only in the last few months, as the Minister said, the B.B.C., when facing the possible threat of losing one of their channels, suddenly discovered other wavelengths. My right hon. Friend should bring in American, German or Japanese consultants to tell him the truth on wavelengths. I cannot believe that the air is different over America from what it is here.
The hon, and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said that in America he got 12 stations just by twiddling the knob. He could have got 20 television stations, one of which would be programmed entirely in Spanish and another would give the stock market results 12 hours a day.
I hate everybody's local paper but my own. I would hate everybody's local radio station but my own. Anyone who returns from America with the idea that commercial radio stinks has not thought the thing through. There are any amount of wavelengths. I would favour a two-tier system, with medium-wave systems, something like the L.R.A. is suggesting, so that in an area like Yorkshire there would be four stations on medium wave competing with each other.
I should like to see a free entry into v.h.f., as in America. The papers show that one can now buy a v.h.f. set for £9, compared with the situation when the Labour Party were in power, when their P.M.G. used to say that such a set cost £16. It is calculated in Australia, Canada, and America that a community of 15,000 people can support a radio station. Hence the stations in caravans. It is a viable proposition.
Scunthorpe has been mentioned. I would willingly take on Scunthorpe. It has 101,000 people. We sold radio advertising in Scunthorpe. The chap is in the House today who sold advertising there. It is a jolly good area in which to sell advertising.

Mr. Richard: Perhaps I over-mentioned Scunthorpe. Lest it be thought that I was singling out North Lincolnshire for any particular flavour of my remarks, may I say that such knowledge as I have of Scunthorpe leads me to believe that people who live there find it an extraordinarily pleasant and desirable place in which to live?

Mr. Proudfoot: They buy radio time, and that is a pretty esoteric thing to sell.
I hope that, before we have commercial radio, television is given freedom of hours. Television is a rigged market. It is totally distorted. The B.B.C. cannot afford to put television out any longer on its own, so I.T.V. is crippled. I beg my right hon. Friend to give freedom of hours to all the television companies, and let them please themselves and broadcast as long as the market will bear it.
The pirates broke the monopoly, which was a service, but they did commercial radio a disservice, because everyone now imagines that commercial radio is all pop music. That has never been true, and it never will be true. If hon. Members would like some figures, a pop station will get 60 per cent. of the available audience, and it is a pretty good station to have, and a sweet music station will get 40 per cent.
I have some statistics of what the pirates did for our exports of that creative product, pop music. This week, of the Top Fifty records in Britain, 18 are American. So much for the B.B.C. In America there are four English items in the Top Fifty. In 1967, when the pirates were on the air, there were only nine Americans in the British Top Fifty and 12 British records in the American Top Fifty. In other words, under the B.B.C. monopoly pop exports to America have dropped by 66 per cent. and American music here has increased by 100 per cent. If that does not worry hon. Members, I hope that it worries the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley),

who spoke for the Musicians' Union, because I believe in growth, and so should his union.
Or take what the British songwriters have to say. While the pirates were on the air, the British portion of songs which went out over the B.B.C. was about 37·57 per cent., in 1969. The contribution by American songwriters was 52·6 per cent. Before the pirates came on the air, 60 per cent. of the output was American and 30 per cent. British, which rather lets the cat out of the bag when hon. Members talk about the countries of origin of the products that come over the air. Indeed, it is a wonder that they do not call it the A.B.C.—American Broadcasting Corporation—rather than the B.B.C.
Consider what the pirates did to build up star names. Indeed, there have been no stars since they went off the air. Think of the Beatles, Humperdinck, Lulu, Cilla Black, the Rolling Stones, Dusty Springfield, Tom Jones, and Herman and the Hermits. No such star names have been created since the pirates disappeared. These boys and girls have been earning a lot of money for Britain in exports.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the people he has named strongly resented their records being played by the pirates and believe that the pirates did nothing for them? In other words, most of what he is saying is a farrago of nonsense.

Mr. Proudfoot: From where does the hon. Gentleman think we got the records?

Mr. Jenkins: You bought them.

Mr. Proudfoot: That is not so. If the record companies did not send them to us, which they certainly did—thousands of records were sent to us free—the artists sent them to us. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I met on a David Frost programme and he knows that what I am saying is true.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Jenkins indicated dissent.

Mr. Proudfoot: The B.B.C. and the G.P.O. managed to con this country into believing that there was some mystique about radio. In fact, there is nothing mysterious about it. There is no reason why radio stations should not


be bought and sold like any other commercial properties.
With 6,000 radio stations in America, there has never been a recorded case of a licence being returned to a licensing authority. When a station has gone bankrupt—does not that sound healthy?—there has always been some character or company willing to buy it. This shows the virility of the American broadcasting system.
The laws of libel, sedition and the official secrets legislation apply to broadcasting as to any other form of communication. It mystifies me to understand why the transmitters must be owned by the I.B.A. Are hon. Members aware that one can buy this equipment without any difficulty? I can produce a catalogue from which one can buy not just an entire radio station but a complete television complex, including the correct mast What worries me is that if my right hon. Friend intends to have 60 radio stations set up by the I.B.A., this will take far longer than he may envisage.
We paid £5,000 for a 10 k.w. transmitter to put on a ship, and the transmitters envisaged in the White Paper will be nowhere as powerful as that. We have lost exports in this sphere. We have no real export trade in transmitters and allied equipment.
I regret that the hon. Member for Rotherham is temporarily absent from the Chamber because I am sure that he would have been interested in my next remarks, which are about restrictive practices and monopolies in this business. We have the Mechanical Copyrights, Phonographical Society, Phonographic Performance Ltd. and the Performing Rights Society. These three bodies want to get about one-third of the revenue from the commercial radio stations which we are about to establish. Future licensees should bargain with them. This will be commercial bargaining, and the Minister and the I.B.A. should not be involved in it. From all points of view, the bargaining should be between the stations and these bodies.
I wish to quote from a letter from the Performing Rights Society. It is a bit of an eye-opener. Dated 13th December, 1965, the letter gives the rates of offshore broadcasts. It says:

The basic rate is 3·25 per cent., but in recognition of the high initial operating costs, the rate is subject to discount under which the effective royalty will be payable as follows:
For the first two years the rate will be 1·625 per cent.;
For the third year the rate will be 2·437 per cent.
After that the full rate will be payable.
This proves that, despite the restrictions and monopoly position to which the hon. Member for Rotherham referred, the Performing Rights Society is willing to do a deal in the market place. I wholeheartedly approve of that state of affairs.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Performing Rights Society and Phonographic Peformance Ltd. are two separate organisations and that one should not be confused with the other?

Mr. Proudfoot: Yes. I agree with that immediately.
As I have shown, these bodies are willing to deal. That is in the nature of man, and I applaud it.
An interesting point relating to this letter from the P.R.S. is that when we said that we were willing to meet the cost which the society had quoted, we were told that while the P.R.S. would not acknowledge our payment, we would be given a receipt. It was the most weird arrangement of which I had heard, so we did not pay. After all, if the society would not acknowledge our payment, we did not see why we should pay, since we would be unable to prove why we had paid, despite the reference to a receipt. I trust that these bodies are aware that they could easily kill a goose which could lay only a leaden egg. Local papers should not worry. They are complementary. Advertising is complementary. I have bought advertising time on commercial radio and I have had to buy space in newspapers. From personal experience I can tell the House that one is totally complementary to the other, and any advertiser worth his salt would have to go on both media locally.
The White Paper will probably stop the very small man from advertising. There is no doubt that it would be too expensive for him. Community radio is, in the end, the cottage industry of communications. The House may be amazed at the fact that the two Front Benches and myself


at present could run a radio station in a caravan. It may shatter hon. Members on the Front Benches that they would have to go out and sell their time. But it can be done and is being done in the world now, and these stations are giving a very good local service.
The I.B.A. would be London-based. I see no need for it. The £3 million is sold down the Swanee. It is unnecessary. The rip-and-read method and local news gathering are there for all to have. The phone-in to the local station will be one of the most listened-to techniques of broadcasting on the local stations. Frankly, I am quite prepared to trust the people with the news. After all, we trust the Sun, the Mail, and even the Express. We trust the Daily Telegraph. I see no reason why we should not be able to let ourselves trust radio stations.
I realised only the other week, listening to the B.B.C. news, how bad it could be at times. The B.B.C. was created by the politicans. It is a rigged market and the B.B.C. pays homage to the politicians' doors every day of its life. One has only to listen to the news to find that almost every item is political. There is no warm news, as my old Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said; there is no human interest at all.
The I.B.A. would be London based. I can tell the House how much people love London-based news in Yorkshire. We are fed up with news from the B.B.C. which tells us where a sewer has burst or where there are roadworks in London. We do not want that news in the North, and I suspect that it is not wanted in the West Country either. We want local community radio.
I turn now to the contentious part of my speech. I speak from a power base of a majority of 59 votes. I want to talk about immigrant radio. I speak about it with absolutely devout sincerity. I hate the fact that the B.B.C. ignores the immigrant communities in Britain. I have the facts and the figures to prove that. The cost of a radio service for immigrants to the people of Wolverhampton and Bradford would be zero if my right hon. Friend would allow them to operate v.h.f. stations commercially. It would cost the taxpayers absolutely nothing. There is a market there, and it is one that should be looked at.
Many Pakistanis, who speak a selection of about five different languages, are unable to read or write. They cannot even read their own newspapers. They have only one form of entertainment and it is expensive—7 shillings a time for a seat in the Pakistani cinemas. Some tune in to the B.B.C. for one half hour a week. They can tune in to Radio Moscow—and they do—for 16 hours. Radio Moscow has three separate channels, which give 16½ hours broadcasting in a week. If the Pakistanis do not like Radio Moscow they can tune in to Cairo, which puts out 16 hours. I can imagine the damage that that could do to relationships in our community. That needs thinking about. I am not blaming the B.B.C. for being evil. This just reflects the views of people who say, "I do not wish to give up my 30 hours of religious broadcasting", or 30 hours of recipes, or anything else. I am sorry for the chap at the top of the heap.
The B.B.C. is really a lot of little empires together. For that reason one cannot get time for the immigrant community. Hon. Members who read their Sunday newspapers will have seen advertisements by a firm called Shopertunities advertising radios made in Russia from £9 to £14 a time. They are being bought in Bradford, and one hears on Radio Moscow requests from Pakistanis in Bradford asking for their favourites tunes. This is the glorious B.B.C. bringing the truth to the free peoples of the world.
I also hope that my right hon. Friend will give v.h.f. stations to the universities. It might take some of the youngsters from the universities off the streets so that they can protest over the air instead. I believe that local business would stump up money for the caravans which have been mentioned for exactly that purpose. So why not give the universities their own radio stations?
Hon. Members opposite talk about people lining their pockets. But I am idealistic about radio and I believe we have never used radio properly in this country. If hon. Members opposite want to talk about sponsored radio—and I am not particularly worried whether we get it or not—let me read a list of sponsored programmes that hon. Members listen to every day of the week from the B.B.C. The list includes Mecca's "Come


Dancing"; which is a sponsored programme; Mecca's "Miss World"; Gillette Cup cricket; the Star dancing championships; the Daily Express power boat race. And who pays for Cliff Michelmore's holidays abroad?—they are sponsored. But it is O.K. for the B.B.C. And it is the glorious B.B.C., the national monopoly, which the Opposition are pledged to keep going in perpetuity.
Let us consider the amount of advertising on B.B.C. What about plugs for films? There is no needle time for the soundtrack of a film, and the Musicians' Union does not trouble the B.B.C. about that. Then, again, it is O.K. to advertise books, and also records. And we know that "payola" is being investigated at the moment.
Every hon. Member has had letters complaining about a book from the Julian Press which contains photographs dealing with sex. My constituents have received circulars advertising this book. But 18 months ago on "Woman's Hour" on the B.B.C. that book, or a book exactly like it, got a half-hour plug. I happened to be sitting in my car at the time listening to my radio and I heard this plug with utter astonishment. It is O.K. for the B.B.C., but my constituents did not like the circulars very much.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman said that a plug was given to this book or one like it, and he must be more careful in his language. Was it a reputable book or a disreputable book? He must not carry on using such loose language in this House.

Mr. Proudfoot: It was a book on the same topic as that which the Julian Press had advertised.
The House will wonder what commercial radio would sound like if I had my way. Hon. Members should go out and ask the next American they meet about what happens in the United States. I asked a little old lady of 55 years of age, who was on my train recently and who came from a small American hick-town, how many radio stations the place had, and she told me four. I asked her what they were and she said "pop", "sweet music", "sport" and "news". She said that she could listen to the news 24 hours in a day. That is service. That is why I will line my pockets if I get the chance, because people will be willing

to pay for a service that people like myself will provide. That is what enterprise is.
Then let us take religious programmes. Again in the United States these programmes run for 24 hours in a day. Some of these broadcasts come from pirate stations over the border in Mexico. Most of it is religious in content, and one advertisement that left me laughing went something like this:
Send one dollar for a real original portrait signed by John the Baptist.
What the public got for their dollar was a photograph of a Mexican Indian, signed, "Juan Battista". I am not saying that that is right, but it makes life a little more colourful than it is in this country sometimes.
If they have wives like mine, hon. Members' wives read the births, deaths and marriages column in the newspaper classified advertisements. I refuse to read them, because I might find myself there. But the women of this country do. Classified advertisements on very local, community radio are the radio counterpart of that column. People become involved.
The radio station I ran lost about £60,000 because the Labour Party gave it the chop. That pleased one hon. Member opposite, and it certainly did not displease me and my friends, who lost that money. I was not worried, because it was a commercial risk. Radio 270, according to National Opinion Poll, had 4¼ million listeners. We had got around to selling space to people in Scunthorpe, at £2 for 30 seconds. This let in the little men, small shopkeepers, who are now buying space in the newspapers where they never advertised before.

Mr. Whitehead: Apart from hearing of the death of John the Baptist in Bengali in the births, marriages and deaths service, how much of a sustained diet of pop music was there on Radio 270?

Mr. Proudfoot: We were a Top 40 format station. It takes a whole day to play the top 40 records three times. [Laughter.] There is nothing wrong with the truth. It had adverts, weather news, news and disc-jockey chatter. Look at Radio 1 now. It is a rococo part of the B.B.C. It got stuck in the groove where the pirates left if four years ago, and has never moved. It is a pathetic period


piece. Hon. Members should check with their teenage sons and daughters to see what they think about it.
Monopoly begets monopoly. The B.B.C. at one time had a list of "payola" for music publishers. I do not know whether it still has, but the facts can be dug out. The B.B.C. is a nationalised monopoly, and always in that situation there are dangers. I support the breaking of the monopoly, but that is about all that I support in the White Paper. If the Bill comes out the same, I shall seek to amend it in the ways I have suggested.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It is inevitable after the speech of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfood) that I will deal with some rather different matters from those I had intended to deal with. I am not sure that we have been listening to the voice of Toryism of 1971, but I have an awful feeling that we have listened to the voice of Toryism of 1975. I hope that the Minister has noted the kind of avenue he is going along.
For well over an hour tonight the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and Brighouse and Spenborough converted the Chamber into a marketing place for their own commodities, and they have boasted about wishing to line their pockets. They have used their presence here, and will use their vote tonight. The hon. Member for Brig house and Spenborough is nodding assent. He must look at the matter seriously. I am extremely disturbed. I did not find the hon. Gentleman's speech as funny as other hon. Members did. We are debating an extremely serious question. The two hon. Gentlemen who have used so much time tonight will vote for lining their own pockets. The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough boasted of it.

Mr. Gorst: Mr. Gorst rose——

Mr. Buchan: Why should I give way? The hon. Gentleman spoke for three quarters of an hour and has made many interventions.

Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I would be lining my pocket.

Mr. Buchan: I will expand on that a little. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken for 45 minutes.

Mr. Gorst: With plenty of interruptions.

Mr. Buchan: And the hon. Gentleman has made plenty since.
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman who boasted about being a pirate is the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough or for Brigand and Spendthrift. He was not talking about television or radio but about markets. "There is a good market here", he said. He said not a word about the content of the programmes, not a word about the music that has been produced in Western Europe over the past thousand years, not a word about speech and drama from Shakespeare onwards. To him, this is a good market.

Mr. Proudfoot: Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman nods again. I take it that he puts cash before Shakespeare and blue chips before "Chips with Everything". He does not care what comes out. His concept of a day's broadcasting is three times the 40 pop tunes. Is that really his idea of the use of television and radio? Is that what he wants to achieve?

Mr. Proudfoot: Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.

Mr. Buchan: It is? Then why, in Heaven's name, cannot he go into soap and leave broadcasting to people with some care for human beings?

Mr. Proudfoot: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the whole of my speech. I talked about format radio. Is not he aware that whether he wanted to turn to sweet music, pop music, news or religious programmes—whatever it might be—he would find it most of the day?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman talked about sweet music because, he said, that is what the housewife wants and he and his friends will maximise the advertising revenue.

Mr. Proudfoot: Mr. Proudfoot indicated assent.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman nods yet again. It is not to be music for the sake of music. It is to be sweet music because that is what the housewife wants.

Mr. Gorst: Why should she not have it?

Mr. Buchan: There is no reason why she should not have it, but at the moment I am discussing the rôle that the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough will be performing in this House. His argument is not really that of having sweet music for the sake of sweet music. It is for profit for the sake of profit. He did not talk about profit and sweet music. He talked about cash. That is not just the voice of a freak. The Minister knows that the White Paper is going to lead him towards this challenge, and I believe he is afraid of it. I go further. The whole actions of the Tory Party in relation to museums, to education, to broadcasting and to the arts is that money is being put before the needs of the people. The Government even call the Minister for the Arts the Paymaster-General. Nothing is more characteristic of the Government than that.

Mr. Gorst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would also be grateful if he would justify his suggestion that I shall be lining my pockets this evening.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has been working for years for the establishment of commercial radio. Does he deny that?

Mr. Gorst: I deny that I will be lining my pockets in any way. I have no interest in any particular company. When the first stations come on the air, I shall have no concern with any of them at all.

Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman says that as from this moment he will absolve himself from all interest, financial or otherwise, in the commercial radio lobby, I will be satisfied. But he will remain secretary of the Commercial Radio Association.

Mr. Gorst: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) is an official of the Musicians' Union.

Mr. McBride: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) held the floor for far too long and he is now making tedious interruptions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): That is not a point of order.

On point of fact, there have been many long speeches from both sides in this debate.

Mr. Buchan: You know me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my interest in this subject and that it is not a financial one. When I hear music dealt with as it has been tonight, I tend to react. I do not want to see it getting into the hands of people like the hon. Members opposite.
There is no justification for the White Paper. There is no justification for the commercial radio lobby having this kind of field day in the House. I see nothing in the White Paper to suggest that the views of those opposed to commercialism in radio have been listened to. The White Paper says on page 5:
There has been great divergence in the opinions expressed, but of the widespread interest in the subject there can be no doubt …
It goes on:
… radio financed from advertisements must offer a truly public service.
In other words, there is no sign, other than from those interested in advertising and money, of any real support whatever for commercial broadcasting as a proper vehicle for radio. Unless we can equate broadcasting with cash this cannot be accepted. I take a fundamentalist position and ask: what are we trying to do? If we are trying to make money then I wish that hon. Members opposite would get into the soap business and leave the decent things alone.
I turn to the question of control. This is not so much a White Paper as a blank cheque. The I.B.A., we are told, will be able to control, not in advance, but after events. How will this work out? Are we to let those who are to operate this, the people behind the right hon. Gentleman, drive a coach and horses through the system for three years and at the end of that time is the I.B.A. to say, "You naughty boy"? This is the big distinction between what is proposed here and the control exercised by the I.T.A.
The Minister has failed completely to distinguish between monopoly and commercial radio. He defended neither the local radio case nor the commercial radio case. He assumed that a local radio station was inevitably commercial. He


then proceeded to defend the concept of local stations to take us with him in accepting commercial radio stations. What he failed to defend was not the case for local radio stations, this is sufficiently proven; he failed to prove the case for commercialism. He let himself down badly.
I want to deal with the Scottish situation. Scotland matters a great deal to those of us who live there. It matters more than the South-East of England does to those who live in the South-East of England. It is probably analogous to the Merseyside area in its attitude, probably more so. There is a sense of national identity and we cannot look at our music, song, speech, nor our radio and television in the way that pirate Members on the back benches opposite can. The Minister is allowing 20 radio stations in England. The suggestion put forward by Alasdair Milne, the Controller of the B.B.C. in Scotland, and the Scottish Council was for local radio stations on the lines of regional stations.
The Highlands have a distinct culture, but clearly it is impossible to have a local station in Stornoway, Dingwall, or any of the tiny villages there. Let us have a local radio in the sense of these natural regions, with one in the Highlands concentrating on Highland life, helping to continue the great traditions of the Highlands—not a station playing the "Top 40" three times a day. Then there could be stations in the North-East, the greatest song area, one on Clydeside and one catering for the South-East and the Border. We are to get none of that. The Minister says that Radio 4 will continue to perform a regional function——

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman surprises me. In spite of his knowledge of Scotland, he apparently does not know that there is a national version of Radio 4, which is enormously appreciated in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: That is what I am saying. The Minister is telling me nothing new. I know the Scottish version of Radio 4, and that will continue. The Minister today argued the desirability of the local station—the desirability of commercial radio was put in by accident, taken in by the back door—but there will not be a local station in Scotland. Neither

will there be one in Wales. These are two areas which could exploit this marvellous medium, two areas with their own culture. These are the areas which will be deprived in order to line the pockets of the commercial lobby. Is this the voice of Toryism in 1975, or do we already hear it now in 1971?
The third error which the Minister made——

Mr. Money: The hon. Gentleman has talked about what local radio stations can do for a district. Will he consider the situation that arises from the sheer parochialism of the B.B.C? Our local radio comes from Norwich. It broadcasts 90 per cent. Norfolk news and 10 per cent. Suffolk or Ipswich news.

Mr. Buchan: I cannot analyse a particular radio station in Norwich. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman brings in parochialism now. We have all agreed on the value of local radio, and the Minister painted the vision glorious of the butcher——

Mr. Money: That is B.B.C.

Mr. Buchan: I do not know what we are talking about. I thought the hon. Gentleman was talking about the B.B.C. local radio in Norwich and painting the prospect of using a helicopter for traffic control. Either a local radio is valuable or it is not. If it is valuable it is valuable because it is local and draws its strength from that. If the hon. Gentleman says that it does not work in this way or if it is working in this way and people are fed up with it, clearly more intelligence and more money must be applied. It is not the requirement that is wrong but the application, and I suspect somewhere along the line there is probably a failure of money coming to the B.B.C.
There is only one defensible argument for advertising and that is income, and I discard that argument. The Minister defended advertising on the grounds of competition. The dispute is not on competition but on the question of commercialism. Hon. Gentlemen opposite when talking of competition can only think of financial competition. The money factor can be brought in, but there are other types of ownership. Is there any reason why there should not be a community of interest type of radio station involving,


for example, in the Glasgow area, the two universities, the municipalities, the trade unions and the chambers of commerce? Is there any reason why B.B.C. financing should not be supplemented from the rates? Can there not be competition of that kind?
Is there any reason why interested bodies should not be able to run local radio stations? Should we say that that which has existed in our mass media from time immemorial is of itself right? Is it right that the ownership of our national Press should all be in separate, single hands? Is this necessarily a God-given situation? Might there not be the alternative that working journalists could have some control? The Minister was once a working journalist in the mass media. This is an attractive alternative. At Le Mans the working staff on a most distinguished newspaper have a direct control. So it is not God-given that the only alternative to competition is money.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman confuses me. I do not think that anyone is in any doubt. There can be competition without its being commercial. The reason the nation supports commercial competition is that it prevents the licence fee from rising: there can be extra service without an increase in the licence fee.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman should tell the Minister that, and he should have been here for the rest of the debate. I concede that there is that argument, but the argument that was advanced was as to the value of competition. It was based on the competition of the news service, it being said that a different news service would be valuable. I agree, but I suspect that what will happen is that 20 minutes after the B.B.C. news programme has finished the local radio station will use it. The local radio stations will cannibalise the B.B.C. news programmes.
The whole thing is a phoney. It is designed to express the money greed of this Tory party—the meanest of all Governments, the kind of patronage and sneering that we have seen from the Paymaster-General in the House of Lords, and the kind of support that the Minister is getting from hon. Members

behind him. This is a greedy, mean, cash-minded Government. The sooner they go the better for the health of the country.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I should declare a perhaps rather tenuous interest, in that I am a consultant to a magazine publishing company which I suppose could go into the commercial radio field.
In the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) we have listened to the authentic voice of Scottish puritanism echoing through the ages, and a pretty dismal voice it is. Given a choice between that and the outlook of my hon. Friend the Member for Brig-house and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), I would rather listen to my hon. Friend's voice and attitude at any time.
For a start, I do not believe that the Scottish puritan record of devotion to the arts adds up to very much. But what I really disliked about the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West was his scorn for his own people. He said that they have a strong musical culture; and this is true. If commercial radio is to operate, surely it will appeal to such tastes. If the people of Scotland want their own music, they will get it on commercial radio, which is a flexible and responsive medium.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) took very much the same attitude in his comments about Radio Scunthorpe. The hon. Gentleman had the tactical prudence to withdraw Scunthorpe from the argument rather late in the day, but throughout his speech he showed clearly that he thought that all that the people of Scunthorpe would want would be tripe and drivel. I do not believe that that is true.
Broadly speaking, I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. I believe that he is right to take positive steps to break the monopoly. I am glad that he has called what might be described as the frequencies bluff. One of the rather sad things over the decades has been the way in which people have pretended that there has not been air space available for additional broadcasting. Some of the earlier commissions of inquiry on this subject carried on with this pretence. I


am very glad that my right hon. Friend has made clear that this is bluff.
I am glad also, for that matter, that my right hon. Friend sacked the Annan Commission, because essentially the decisions that had to be taken were political and social decisions which should rightly be taken by the House of Commons and by the Government. I do not believe that the Annan Commission would have served any good purpose.
I welcome these proposals also because they will do something to help to relieve the growing shortage of jobs among journalists—my own profession. I believe that when there is a full chain of commercial radio stations some of the journalists who are at present feeling the squeeze badly will find jobs there as news gatherers, feature writers, and so on.
Contrary to what a number of my hon. Friends have said, I do not think that the new scheme will harm local newspapers. I do not go along completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough who said that commercial radio will take over the classified advertising which at present goes to local newspapers. I think that the small ads will continue to appear in local newspapers, and that that is where their strength lies.
I welcome the White Paper because it gives real encouragement to the entrepreneurial spirit of which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, is a clear example. I see nothing wrong in starting a radio station with a small staff and the minimum of equipment, though I should prefer to see the equipment provided privately. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that it would not do to have just a turntable, an amplifier, and a handful of people looking after them. That is symptomatic of the views of the party opposite, and one easily visualises the sort of over-manning likely to result from the implementation of that approach. If it is to be the approach, we shall never have commercial radio. It has to be done on the cheap, and I see nothing wrong in that.
Nor do I think much of the argument of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West who takes the view that local radio should be subsidised from the rates. His

right hon. and hon. Friends are always telling us that rates are regressive, as the Allen Report pointed out. The more one subsidises from the rates, the more one hits the poorer members of the population.
However, all those points are peripheral ones. The real point is whether local radio can do something worth while and provide a form of broadcasting which will add to local community life. Can it enrich local community life and express the increasing extent to which people want to re-create the sense of community?
I believe that the stations will try to be popular. They will have to attract audiences. However, in striving to be popular, I am sure that they will not turn their backs on the areas in which they operate. It is the job of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to make it clear to a local radio station that if it does not do its job properly towards the community, it will lose its licence. That must be the first criterion in the allocation and reallocation of contracts. I hope that the I.B.A. will be prepared to be tough and certainly tougher than the I.T.A. has been towards its programme contractors. If it is, I have no doubt that local radio can help enrich and enhance the life of the communities. It can do so in the provision of news. Clearly the provision of immediate news is one of the major jobs of local radio. It can also do so in the provision of feature material, or what we have heard described as "warm" news. I disagree that only "hot" news is appropriate to radio.
Thinking back to an argument which recently heavily concerned my own constituency about the third London airport, it seems to me that the whole issue which involved people so much, with its succession of meetings and arguments, was a matter which a local radio programme could have handled to enormous effect. It could have done it in such a way that people were drawn into the argument. I admit that if a B.B.C. local station had existed, it could have done the same. There is no unique quality in this respect about commercial radio.
The great, common sense merit of commercial local radio is that it can be provided without cost to the licence payer


or tax payer. If it can provide a worth while service of quality, I see no reason against using advertising revenue to finance it. It will promote a worthwhile source of local information, and information is one of the prime ingredients of radio today. Despite the scorn of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is no doubt that the kind of advertising which would be found on local radio is information which would be genuinely useful to the locality.
I believe that my hon. Friend has made a very good start with the White Paper. I hope that he will not be deterred by the niggling, puritanical and, for the most part, inane criticisms of the Opposition.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: This is the first debate we have had on broadcasting for a very long time. It strikes me that it should be the first in a series of important discussions which should lead to the 1976 period when we discuss the B.B.C. and I.T.A. contracts.
The discussion today has been on the narrow subject of local commercial radio. I hope the Minister will assure us that in the months ahead he will try to widen the debates a great deal more and will listen to people who have important views to express on broadcasting in the 1970s and and 1980s.
We on this side of the House regard it as very serious that the Minister should have deprived the country of the information and the thinking that we could have from the Commission of Inquiry. We thought he was wrong to dismiss Lord Annan and his Commission before it even got off the ground. There is much room for thinking on the matter and the right hon. Gentleman has deprived the House and the country, not least himself, of a lot of useful information and important thinking on the whole range of the subject, not just on the technological aspects which were to occur some time after 1974. We hope that even at this stage the Minister will give further consideration to an inquiry and allow open debate throughout the country on the whole system of radio broadcasting and television.
Today we should be discussing the whole future of communication, but we are discussing the comparatively narrow issue of commercial radio. Although the

right hon. Gentleman has dressed up the White Paper and given it a grand title, "An Alternative System of Radio Broadcasting", that is not what is in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It certainly was not in the mind of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot). He had a much narrower concept of an alternative system of radio broadcasting.
No matter what lofty ideals the Minister may have, the White Paper—the first that many of us have seen, despite rumours which we have heard from other sources—was certainly in the minds of many of us when we heard the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough proclaim himself the pirate king of radio broadcasting in this country.

Mr. Proudfoot: I never claimed to be a monarch. I was never the monarch of the air. I was on one of the smaller stations along with 60 friends.

Mr. Mackenzie: If not the monarch, the hon. Gentleman was certainly the clown prince of the debate which we have had today. Having heard the hon. Gentleman, we see the White Paper as no more than a respectable way of trying to bring him ashore. The Minister did not attempt to do that terribly seriously today.
I thought it funny when I listened to the debate in the House of Lords last week that when talking about pop pirates and local commercial radio and people like the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough the Government should dignify the whole debate by having it done by the Minister for the Arts no less. I am sure that it pleased the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough to be dignified in this way. Perhaps the Minister for the Arts was not really speaking as the Minister for the Arts, but, as was suggested rather cynically by some of my hon. Friends, in his capacity as Paymaster-General—a much more appropriate title for him to use when speaking on this subject.
Even if we are talking only about commercial radio tonight, I, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends, feel that the White Paper fails to give us information on a whole range of topics about finance, who is to do the siting, who is to do the controlling, and so on. One has a


great deal of difficulty in believing that this little book is the product of 12 months of hard thinking on the part of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. No one can describe this as a weighty document.
As my hon. Friend said, the noble Lord who wound up for the Government in the House of Lords described it as no more than a talking point. It is what might be described in any other Department as a Green Paper. But we know that the Minister is a comparatively sensitive man and I am sure that he would not want any thoughts which he had on broadcasting, particularly local commercial broadcasting, to be described as a Green Paper. So the comments about this White Paper today, in the House of Lords last week and in the newspapers over the last few months, should prove to the Minister that, if this document ever appeared as legislation it would be given a very dusty reception.
Some hon. Members have said that radio is making a comeback in this country. We must ask ourselves what form this will take. There is a real desire for local radio. This was proved beyond all doubt by the remarks made by the B.B.C. and other organisations. Ian Trethowan of the B.B.C. has said that his audience research shows that at peak times local radio stations usually attract more v.h.f. listeners than Radio 4 and sometimes more than the other national networks.
Like the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), I cannot hear local radio in my part of the world in Scotland, but I hear a little in London. But some of my hon. Friends with local radio in their areas pay a very high tribute to the service which the B.B.C. gives in local radio and to the skill, imagination and enthusiasm of many of the young people who man these stations.
But, given this desire for local radio, there is a confusion, many people feel, in the Government's attitude to its method of operation. The B.B.C. have proved, by being a popular service, that they have created a demand for real community radio, reflecting the life of its area.
There was an excellent quotation in last year's debate on broadcasting, from an article by Frank Gillard, whom many

people regard as the father of local radio in this country. In 1962, he said:
The one absolute essential of local radio will be the existence of a genuine, well-established community of interest over a wide range. On such a foundation would it be possible to build a worthwhile local radio service.
That is a definition that I like. It matches my ideals of how local radio should operate—although I must concede that there is a demand for pop stations.
The Minister unkindly told me and some of my hon. Friends the other day that one of the reasons that we do not like pop stations is that there is a substantial generation gap. I am sure that he did not mean it in too unkind a fashion. We are arguing that a local radio station is certainly not a pop station. We hope that the Minister will not get this whole business confused, as some of his hon. Friends have done in the past. It is a sad state of affairs that the right hon. Gentleman is not letting himself think about things other than the B.B.C., local radio and the sort of commercial radio that has been advocated by the hon. Member for How-den (Mr. Bryan) and the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough. The right hon. Gentleman should let his mind wander a little over the subject. Only then will we find the best way to use the frequencies that have been made available to us.
The right hon. Gentleman is in the difficulty of having his options considerably narrowed. This results in part from the speech made by the Prime Minister in the broadcasting debate in 1969. On that occasion he said firmly—his terms were almost as extravagant as some of those used in this debate by some hon. Gentlemen opposite—that he was hell bent on breaking the monopoly of the B.B.C. This has hemmed down the Minister.
The pledges made by the hon. Member for Howden have also tended to hem the right hon. Gentleman down. When he was the spokesman on this subject for the then Conservative Opposition—I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place—the hon. Member for Howden thought that one could cash in on the popularity of the pop pirates, especially among the younger voters. He thought that in addition to catching a lot of votes by appealing to the 18-year-olds, so


getting some electoral kudos, he could at the same time boost the morale of the commercial backers.
That is the framework within which the Minister has been obliged to operate. He may not like it, just as he may not like the pledges that were made by his hon. Friend the Member for Howden, but he is stuck with it. That is why he has had to present this White Paper in such a peculiar fashion. I believe that had it not been for some of the statements made 18 months ago by the then Conservative Opposition spokesman on this subject, in addition to other comments made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly about breaking the B.B.C.'s monopoly, the right hon. Gentleman would have had other alternatives open to him.

Mr. Chataway: Such as what?

Mr. Mackenzie: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) wrote an article some time ago suggesting a series of local radio networks in a national broadcasting service. Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) wondered whether local radio could not be operated through a local authority arrangement of some description. This is one alternative that could have been examined by the right hon. Gentleman. Not long ago a Labour P.M.G. tried to persuade local authorities to play a part in the whole business of community radio. Many of them rejected this idea, no doubt because they regarded it as a costly exercise.
Last week the Secretary of State for the Environment introduced his new concept of regional government. I believe that within the framework of what he described as a new progressive form of local and regional government there might be a place for some sort of regional and local radio worked out by local authorities.
These are only two possibilities. They have not been examined and we have not been able to seriously consider them in this debate. No alternatives are available to us because the Minister has been plugging ahead in a defensive way on a local commercial radio tack. We have tried to tell him that he could have commercial radio as well as local radio, but we do not believe that the two can go together.

That has also been the message from hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Gentleman does not like to hear about Mr. Hughie Green. One of his colleagues condemned Mr. Green in eloquent terms. But it was Mr. Green who said that while backyard material was important it could not get audiences in the way that the mass entertainment shows could. There speaks the real voice of commercial radio in this country at present, and not necessarily the voice of the Minister. The voices of Hendon, of Brighouse and Spenborough and of Hughie Green are certainly much more important to the debate than what the Minister said in his very defensive speech.
What will we get? Despite the protestations which we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite, protestations that we will have not just pop stations but something rather better than Radio Luxembourg and better than the pop stations in the United States, we shall get something, we are told, rather more like Radio Manx, the station which, we recall, was set up literally within the dying hours of the 1959–64 Conservative Government.

Mr. Gorst: Blessed by the hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. Mackenzie: It was not blessed by us. Indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East was happily in a position to turn down an extension of the franchise, if my memory serves me right.
A point worth making about Radio Manx is that it did not make very large profits, as many thought that it would in its initial stages. Now it does make profits.

Mr. Gorst: Small ones.

Mr. Mackenzie: It only makes profits—this is a point of interest to people employed in providing entertainment—because, as I read it from the Sunday Times of 28th July, it does so on the basis of the low earnings of its employees; low wages and certainly low costs.
From reading the programme schedules, particularly the schedule enuniciated on Manx Radio only a year ago, there is no doubt that it got away with a great deal of rubbish on that particular programme.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is very conscious of Radio Manx because it was he who told the country at great length that it was Radio Manx which finally persuaded the Conservative to go in for commercial radio in a big way. He did that in the pamphlet published by the Local Radio Association, which said:
Finally the Conservative Opposition committed itself to support for commercial radio at its 1966 Party Conference in Blackpool. Undoubtedly, the Conservatives were helped towards this decision by the responsible and popular commercial station set up in the Isle of Man in 1964.
If Radio Manx is to be the guide for local commercial radio in this country we are indeed in for a very ropey time in the local areas.

Mr. Gorst: It is only fair to the people of the Isle of Man to record that they enjoy Manx Radio, and enjoy it much more than they enjoy listening to any of the other services which are either offered or have been offered in the past by pirates.

Mr. Mackenzie: I shall not comment on the tastes of those who live on the Isle of Man. That is quite another matter. All I am saying is that from what I have read of the programme schedules it is not the sort of thing which I want to hear and certainly not the sort of thing which many people in Britain want to hear.
Since the publication of the White Paper, the Minister has been at pains to tell us that we will not have a Radio Luxembourg or pop stations similar to those in America. Because of the I.B.A. we shall have a system of control which will produce higher standards. The Minister told the Beaverbrook conference that it would produce higher standards of music than that which we enjoy on the radio. But that does not seem to be the view of the companies—all three hundred of them who are in the rat race—who hope to operate these local radio stations. They know what they want and hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about this from their knowledge and interest in this matter. They are for the big audiences, for the big-spending teenagers and for the housewives. But if the Government go on as they have been for much longer, the housewives

will not have as much to spend as the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and his friends would hope.
Let us take two or three of these organisations and see the sort of programme they want, despite what the Minister says. One of them is the Rank Organisation. It must be remembered that the Rank Organisation is close to the Minister and his friends since it made a substantial contribution to Conservative election funds only a year ago and therefore Rank's voice is important. Indeed, they have £10,000-worth of voice in the framing of broadcasting policy. Then there is the Local Radio Association which says that it will give the public the sound of music for 65 per cent. of the time, speech for 16½ per cent., news 8 per cent. and advertising 10 per cent. of the time. Mr. Hughie Green and his Commercial Broadcasting Consultants will give them 40 per cent. light entertainment and 8 per cent. news. That is what the companies will give, despite what the Minister may say. That is what the companies and the advertisers want because they believe it is good business. That is the most important thing with which the Minister has to concern himself.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is a man who believes that there is a mass audience for the commercial stations and that the minorities are for the B.B.C. The Prime Minister believes that, as in so many other spheres, the public service sector has to do the grind and the commercial interests are to have the cream. The Prime Minister in last year's debate proclaimed himself to be one of a very small minority, and one had the same sort of approach from Lord Eccles who spoke in the House of Lords the other day. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) quoted that speech, but since Lord Eccles is the Minister for the Arts and Paymaster-General it is worth quoting again. The noble Lord went on in rather lofty tones as follows:
I often think that because the B.B.C. radio news suits me so well and suits other more or less educated middle-class listeners, it must mean that it does not suit the much larger part of the population who do not have the same vocabulary or the same interests as the noble Lord …"—OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 19th May, 1971; Vol. 319, c. 471.]


I often wonder what the Government get up to in their spare time. Now we know. We have the Prime Minister listening to Bach, Beethoven and radio plays by Moliere, and we have Lord Eccles listening to middle-class news. This is the sort of nonsense we are getting from a senior member of the Government. It is the most arrogant stuff we have heard in a lifetime and goes no way to implement the Prime Minister's great desire to have one nation in this country.
We feel that the White Paper cannot be the last word. It has been kicked around in the national newspapers, it has been given a cool welcome in the other place, and commercial companies like that run by Mr. Hughie Green have laughed at it. Even Conservative back benchers have bashed it all over the place and it seems that the document is not really an alternative plan for broadcasting at all. But that is what we expected after all the delays and all the leaks. The Minister's personal dilemma was neatly summed up by one journalist, who said that he had "inherited a slogan and not a policy". That is true, and there seems no doubt that he has had to grope around to find a compromise policy. He has failed to do this, and has also failed to unite his own colleagues, in the House of Lords and here, on the matter.
Conservative hon. Members and their Friends have put forward many thoughts. Some are for 60 stations, and some are for 120. Some are for a radio free-for-all. There is only one thing they have in common. Like the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough, they feel that there is a bob or two somewhere for someone, and if there is they are determined to be in on it, as the hon. Gentleman so frankly said today.
The White Paper is not about an alternative form of broadcasting. It is not about people's entertainment or their education. It is about people's money and how that money can be most effectively transferred from their pockets into those of the hardware manufacturers, advertising agencies, and commercial interests. This is a pay-off. The Minister has missed a great opportunity to use the precious commodity of radio in the interests of the whole community, by making this just one more stop on the

gravy train started by this Government last July.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Chataway: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on what I think was his first speech from the Dispatch Box—an extremely attractive speech which the House enjoyed. It masked what was undoubtedly a difficult dilemma, because both he and his hon. Friends were put here today to raise detailed points about the White Paper and indulge in a little generalised attack, but they were very careful not to commit themselves against commercial broadcasting. They were very careful to say that they were not in favour of the B.B.C. monopoly, but they would not say what it was they were in favour of.
That is a straightforward plan, though it may be a little disappointing, because it is obvious what the Conservative Party has been doing. For a long time there has been an independent television system based upon regional stations, so we have argued for a commercial radio set-up based upon local stations. That proposal has been in existence for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to discuss and think about for a long time, though precious few have done so. It is no good their saying tonight, "If we had had a bit of time, we could have thought about whether it would be nice to have some stations run by the local authorities. This is a waste of precious frequencies." But what the Opposition want to do with the frequencies we do not know at the end of the debate.
All we know is that we have found the frequencies for an additional broadcasting service. It is additional to all the services available now from the B.B.C.; we are not taking anything away from anyone. [Interruption.] Except money, says the right hon. Gentleman, because he is afraid that people will want to listen to what is presented by commercial radio. [Interruption.] He says that he is not afraid of that. If they do not want to listen, there will be no money taken away from anyone. [Interruption.] Now he says, "Don't be so silly." I wonder how he thinks commercial radio works. If people do not want to listen, people will not advertise,


and no one gets any money. The person who has invested in the station loses his money.
We heard from the Opposition Front Bench speeches which, although attractive, revealed a sad timidity. It is an unheroic posture that the Opposition adopt. There have been no suggestions about what kind of alternative to the B.B.C. they want, if they want an alternative. But it has been a useful and good-humoured debate on the whole, although in extremely low key. It is remarkable that there is to be a vote, because in the main the benches opposite have been deserted.
On this side, the great majority of my hon. Friends cannot see what the argument is about. That in a mixed system of broadcasting there should be a commercial alternative to the B.B.C. seems to the majority of us self-evident. I suspect that it seems so to the great majority of hon. Members opposite. Certainly, there has been no indication from their attendance today that the plan is opposed with any strength.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Mr. Hugh Jenkins rose——

Mr. Chataway: I have little time left.
A number of hon. Members commented on the three alternatives put forward in the White Paper for the news service. There was general recognition, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Balfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and others, of the importance of a news service and a recognition that news bulks larger in radio than in television. One of the major benefits that one can look for in an alternative system of broadcasting is an alternative news service.
I think, too, that there was agreement that the development, for good or evil—and there was some disagreement on both sides on this—of a more personalised presentation of news programmes, such as we have seen on "The World at One" and so on, makes it all the more important that there should be an alternative. It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proud-foot), in his extremely attractive and amusing speech, that there was no necessity to lay down in legislation that

there should be a central news service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North argued, from his knowledge of North America, that the commercial stations were bound to afford a news service, international as well as local, because that is what the customers want and, therefore, it is not necessary to set up one central source.
I believe, however, that it is right to follow the precedent of television, at least at the outset, in this respect, because if one is to build up a central source of international and national news for a service that is of sufficient calibre and does not simply provide a "rip-and-read" service but produces interviews and coverage such as the best North American news services do—the N.B.C., the C.B.S. and Westinghouse—it is right to concentrate resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North admired the North American all-news service—the W.I.N.S. in New York—and suggested that of the three alternatives of the White Paper, it was the right one to follow, but a number of hon. Members paid tribute to the I.T.N. and thought that the I.T.N. or its radio equivalent would be the right answer. It is interesting to note that in a number of speeches by hon. Members opposite in which there was denunciation of broadcasting financed by advertising there was tribute to the I.T.N.
There was also argument about the number of stations that there should be. My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, North and Brighouse and Spenborough argued for more than those proposed. They pointed out that there are 6,000 stations in the United States and 400 in Canada, and asked why there are, apparently, only the frequencies to have so few in the United Kingdom. The fundamental difference between our situation and that of Western Europe and the situation of Australia and New Zealand, which were also mentioned, is that in Western Europe there are a large number of high-powered stations in an area of dense population and there are far fewer frequencies available. In any event, my own feeling is that the number of frequencies that we have secured for the start of the independent radio service is sufficient.
There can be little doubt that the first 20 or so stations catering for the larger


areas will be immediately viable and capable of putting on a good service. After that we have to proceed by trial and error to see what can be viable, and in what form, outside the major centres of population. My hon. Friends have dispelled many of the illusions that prevailed in various parts of the House that commercial broadcasting is necessarily concerned just with pop and would necessarily be simply a "Radio 1". In many parts of the world there is format radio, specialising in a vast variety of subjects, offering a considerable range of choice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) asked about the situation in Wales and Scotland. There, the national version of Radio 4 will continue. In addition, there will be independent radio stations under the I.B.A.
There was an inquiry about whether B.B.C. local stations should have medium-frequency back-up. There were references to the plan advanced in the New Statesman nearly a year ago by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). This is the only bit of positive thinking that has come from the Opposition, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who was part-author of that plan.
The plan suggested that Radio 1 and the local stations should be taken away from the B.B.C. and put into the alternative system, financed in part at least by advertising. A number of hon. Gentlemen argued that there ought to be more B.B.C. local stations, and, in particular, were protesting that there was no medium-frequency back-up immediately available. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that we shall proceed with as much speed as possible to secure the necessary frequencies by international agreement and then draw up a comprehensive frequency plan which will take into account the needs of the commercial service and the B.B.C. local stations. This cannot be done until there is an indication of where the independent stations will be and until the frequencies are secured by international agreement.
It was interesting to note that neither of the Opposition Front Bench speakers mentioned the local Press. This is an indication of the way in which apprehensions

about the effect of commercial radio upon the local and provincial Press have been dispelled.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Nonsense.

Mr. Chataway: In both Opposition Front Bench speeches there was no suggestion that this would have a damaging effect upon the local Press.

Mr. Mackenzie: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to realise that the time factor limited discussion. We were prepared to talk about this.

Mr. Chataway: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have been prepared to talk about it but it was an indication of the importance attached to it.

Mr. Whitehead: Mr. Whitehead rose——

Mr. Chataway: No, I cannot give way. The real issues in the debate were well posed by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, sadly missed from this debate. I suspect that he has chosen not to appear. He came in very briefly but we did not see him for long. In the New Statesman article he said about the tactics of the Opposition:
We can oppose the Chataway plan in principle exactly as we did in 1954".
He had previously explained that in 1954 they had lost a bit of ground because they had sought to preserve monopoly. He went on:
… or secondly we can offer only ritual opposition to the Bill, seeking to improve safeguards or we can try to work out a real alternative.
There has been no attempt to work out a real alternative. There has been a muted suggestion from one or two back-benchers—from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for example—that perhaps the alternative is something along the lines of what was suggested by the Pilkington Committee on television. The central authority would be responsible for selling the advertising, and there would be a separation of advertising from programme production. Obviously, not much thought has been given to that. The idea that the central authority can sell local advertising in this set-up is not a very serious proposition. The idea of Lord Aylestone's men in Knightsbridge going round the grocers' shops in Scunthorpe selling advertising belies serious consideration.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman will know that at the outset some of my hon. Friends and I asked him specifically to deal with the way in which the I.B.A. would control the programme companies. He was asked this at the beginning of the debate, but he has not told us. What is the answer?

Mr. Chataway: The answer, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is that the I.B.A. will have the same range of controls over radio as it will have over television. In addition, there is the rolling three-year contract which, as the Opposition spokesman in the other House said, will give considerable additional powers. Control over radio is a great deal easier, because it is cheap to record every radio programme, and this gives the authority the power to look at any radio programme it wishes.
There has been in this debate some splendid denunciation of the profit motive and of the lining of pockets—Clause 4 has really ridden again today—but it has not been made clear whether these fundamental objections to private greed and the profit motive apply only to radio or whether commercial television, too, incurs the wrath of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In my opening remarks I quoted one speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but there are several of his speeches from which one could quote. On the tenth anniversary of Independent Television he said:
Independent Television has become part of our national anatomy. More than that, it has

become part of our national system, and part of our national way of life".

Does that still represent the view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite? We have not been told. Is there any particular feature of radio which makes it inappropriate to be financed by advertising? Is there something about television that makes it right to have commercial television, and something about radio that it makes it absolutely unthinkable for it to be financed by advertising? If there is, it has not been mentioned during this debate. No doubt hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have been up against the time factor once more.

There is at the end of this debate, therefore—and not only on our side—the conviction that commercial radio can provide a service that will be of real value and can for B.B.C. radio perform some of the same functions that commercial television performed for B.B.C. television. We believe that we shall see a revival of radio. In a number of countries radio has staged a comeback. At the end of the day we are left in total ignorance of the views of the Opposition, and we do not know whether or not they are in favour of commercial broadcasting, sound or television. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 247.

Division No. 373.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Albu, Austen
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Fred


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Allen, Scholefield
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Ashton, Joe
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Joel
Dalyell, Tarn
Forrester, John


Beaney, Alan
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Bidwell, Sidney
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


BlenKinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Booth, Albert
Deakins, Eric
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Delargy, H. J.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Doig, Peter
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Buchan, Norman
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamling, William


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Driberg, Tom
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dunnett, Jack
Hardy, Peter


Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex
Harper, Joseph


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Coleman, Donald
Ellis, Tom





Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Horam, John
Marquand, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marsden, F.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sillars, James


Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Janner, Greville
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Spearing, Nigel


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stallard, A. w.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Moyle, Roland
Steel, David


John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Stoddart David (Swindon)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Oram, Bert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Swain, Thomas


Kaufman, Gerald
Oswald, Thomas
Taverne, Dick


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kerr, Russell
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lambie, David
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Tinn, James


Lamond, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tomney, Frank


Lawson, George
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Torney, Tom


Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie
Tuck, Raphael


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T, W.


Leonard, Dick
Pentland, Norman
Varley, Eric G.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wainwright, Edwin


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prescott, John
Waiden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Weitzman, David


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Loughlin, Charles
Probert, Arthur
White James (Glasgow Pollok)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rankin, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McBride, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McCartney, Hugh
Richard, Ivor
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)



McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carlisle, Mark
Fidler, Michael


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chapman, Sydney
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Atkins, Humphrey
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Clark William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Foster, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Clegg, Walter
Fowler, Norman


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cockeram, Eric
Fox, Marcus


Batsford, Brian
Cooke, Robert
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Benyon, W.
Cooper, A. E.
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gardner, Edward


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Gibson-Watt, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Body, Richard
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Crouch, David
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Bowden, Andrew
Curran, Charles
Gorst, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gower, Raymond


Braine, Bernard
Dean, Paul
Gray, Hamish


Bray, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Green, Alan


Brewis, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dixon, Piers
Grylls, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Gummer, Selwyn


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bryan, Paul
Dykes, Hugh
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Eden, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Buck, Antony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eyre, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fell, Anthony
Havers, Michael







Hay, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Simeons, Charles


Hicks, Robert
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hiley, Joseph
Moate, Roger
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Molyneaux, James
Soref, Harold


Holland, Philip
Money, Ernie
Spence, John


Hordern, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sproat, lain


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
More, Jasper
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hunt, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mudd, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Iremonger, T. L.
Murton, Oscar
Sutcliffe, John


James, David
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tebbit, Norman


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Osborn, John
Temple, John M.


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thomas John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kilfedder, James
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thompson Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Tilney, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Kinsey, J. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trew, Peter


Knox, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lambton, Antony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lane, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Raison, Timothy
Vickers, Dame Joan


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Waddington, David


Le Marchant, Spencer
Redmond, Robert
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walters, Dennis


Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Ward, Dame Irene


Luce, R. N.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill Bernard


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


MacArthur, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McMillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Madel, David
Rost, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Maginnis, John E.
Royle, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Russell, Sir Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


Marten, Neil
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.



Mather, Carol
Scott-Hopkins, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mawby, Ray
Sharpies, Richard
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Keith Speed.


Meyer, Sir Anthony

Main Question put and agree to.


Resolved,


That this House takes note of the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting (Command Paper No. 4636).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,


That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Rating Bill, the Misuse of Drugs Bill and the Fire Precautions Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Monro.]

Orders of the Day — RATING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

EXTENSION OF DEFINITION OF "AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS" AND "AGRICULTURAL LAND" FOR PURPOSES OF DERATING IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out "or section" and insert:
,(buildings occupied in connection with beekeeping) or".

10.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must call the attention of the House to the fact that Privilege is involved in all three Lords Amendments to the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the House to discuss them together. The others are:

New Clause "A"

BUILDINGS OCCUPIED IN CONNECTION WITH BEE-KEEPING

Lords Amendment: No. 2, after Clause 2, in page 3, line 2, at end insert new Clause "A":
A. A building, other than a dwelling, is an agricultural building by virtue of this section if—

(a) it is occupied by a person keeping bees and is used solely in connection with the keeping of those bees; and
(b) the same condition is satisfied as has to be satisfied under subsection (4) of section 2 of this Act for a building to be an agricultural building by virtue of that section."

New Clause "B"

BUILDINGS OCCUPIED IN CONNECTION WITH BEE-KEEPING

Lords Amendment: No. 3, after Clause 4, in page 5, line 6, at end insert new Clause "B":

B. Notwithstanding anything in section 7(2) of the Act of 1956, a building (other than a dwelling-house)—

(a) which is occupied by a person keeping bees and which is used solely in connection with the keeping of those bees, and
(b) in respect of which the same condition is satisfied as has to be satisfied under subsection (5) of section 4 of this Act for a building used as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) of that section to be a building to which that section applies,

shall be treated as respects the year 1971–72 and subsequent years as agricultural lands and heritages for the purposes of section 7(3) of the Act of 195 6.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Obviously it is better to take the three Amendments together, Mr. Speaker.
The reason behind the Amendments is to extend the benefits of the Bill to the buildings of bee farmers.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) and for Kings Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) for the assiduous way in which they have pursued the matter throughout the different stages of the Bill. I also thank the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) for his encouragement, in the earlier stages, that if we could bring forward an Amendment of this kind he would give it his support.
I shall not detain the House long. After all, we are fulfilling undertakings which we gave on Report and on Second Reading in the House of Lords.
Although the Amendments look somewhat long and complicated and, in proportion to the size of the Bill, of quite disproportionate length, they are necessary if we are to be certain of extending the benefits under the Bill to the buildings of bee farmers.
I am very pleased about the Amendments. Honey is one of my favourite foods. I recommend it to other hon. Members. It is a healthy, nutritious food and well worth while. I am also an amateur bee keeper. As such, I cannot hope to benefit from the extension of the Bill, but I can understand that to those concerned in commercial bee keeping it is worth while.
In this good spirit—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford will respond similarly—I commend the Amendments to the House.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: May I add some congratulatory flowers to the Under-Secretary of State's honey? These Amendments are an end product of a question which I raised in an intervention in the winding-up speech on Second Reading. I did so because a constituent had come to me in person during the postal strike to give me a message just as I was leaving the country to come here for this debate.
I am grateful to the Minister. This is a classic example of the responsiveness of Government and the procedures of Parliament to a point, however small, which is deemed to have some merit. That it has produced two new Clauses and the whole procedures of amendment in the other place is a measure of the Government's consideration. I express my thanks and those of the bee-keeping fraternity to the Under-Secretary and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and their respective draftsmen and advisers, for overcoming a tricky legal point.

Mr. John Silkin: I am very happy to welcome these Amendments on behalf of the Opposition. It is right that they should all be taken together. It is a remarkable achievement by the Parliamentary draftsman that they have met this point. The Under-Secretary of State's speech was both witty and brief: mine at least will be brief.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.—[Special Entries.]

Orders of the Day — MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 9

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ETC. RELATING TO OPIUM

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 27, leave out from "Act" to "it" in line 28.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
If it is for the convenience of the House, perhaps we can discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendment No. 2 in page 7, line 33, leave out from "possession" to end of line 46 and insert:

"(i) any pipes or other utensils made or adapted for use in connection with the smoking of opium, being pipes or utensils which have been used by him or with his knowledge and permission in that connection or which he intends to use or permit others to use in that connection; or
(ii) any utensils which have been used by him or with his knowledge and permission in connection with the preparation of opium for smoking."
The second Amendment would make it clear that a person who owns an opium pipe or utensil as a collector's piece is not rendered liable to prosecution unless he used it or intended to use it for smoking opium or knowingly permitted another to have it for such a purpose. The other Amendment removes the statutory defence in relation to this, because it is felt that, with a much clearer definition, this would no longer be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

ATTEMPTS ETC. TO COMMIT OFFENCES

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 16, line 23, leave out from "any" to end of line 27 and insert:
other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps we might discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendments: No. 6, in Clause 25, page 20, line 1, leave out "19(1) or (2) or section 20(1)" and insert "19", No. 7, in page 20, line 7, leave out "section 19(1) or (2) or section 20(1)" and insert "that section" and No. 8, in Clause 25, page 20, leave out lines 11 to 22 and insert
means the offence under this Act to which the attempt or, as the case may be, the incitement or attempted incitement mentioned in section 19 was directed.

Amendment No. 3 simplifies the drafting of Clause 19 by amalgamating the two subsections into the Clause, but makes no change of substance. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 in Clauses 19 and 20 respectively.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am very glad to be able to agree with the Minister of State that this is a substantial improvement in the presentation of the Clause. On 9th December last year, when we had Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, and when many of us wished it godspeed, we little thought that it would be towards the end of May before we saw it returning from another place. But I understand that a great deal of industry has gone into the shaping of many of these Amendments. We readily concede that they improve the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20

OFFENCES RELATING TO THE DOING OF THINGS OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
During the passage of the Bill, research into the relevant treaty provisions—that is, Article 36 of the Penal Provisions of the United Nations Single Convention on

Narcotic Drugs, 1961—revealed that the reference to an "act preparatory to" goes back to a convention of 1936 for the suppression of traffic in illicit drugs.
The words were intended to help those countries which had no developed juristic system to deal with attempts and conspiracies to commit offences. With the extension of modern systems of administration throughout the world, there is now less need for this kind of help than formerly. In any event, subsection (1) is not essential for the strict implementation of the Single Convention.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister. The words "act preparatory to" could have had very little, if any, meaning in English law. They certainly do not encompass an attempt or incitement, and I am sure that it was necessary that they should be exorcised.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 23

POWERS TO SEARCH AND OBTAIN EVIDENCE

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 18, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
() conceals from a person acting in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) above any such books, documents, stocks or drugs as are mentioned in that subsection; or
() without reasonable excuse (proof of which shall lie on him) fails to produce any such books or documents as are so mentioned where their production is demanded by a person in the exercise of his powers under that subsection.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The object of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that the offence of concealing books, documents, stocks or drugs, or of failing to produce books or documents, relates solely to the situation where a constable or other authorised person exercises the powers of search of business premises conferred by Clause 23(1).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 25

PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 20, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment removes the provision requiring the intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions—or, in Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General—before a case can be dealt with on indictment. We discussed this matter on Report, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers) raised this point, as did the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). The result was this Amendment being tabled in another place.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: My hon. Friends and I are grateful to the Minister for this Amendment. It means that it is no longer necessary, before a prosecution on indictment is proceeded with, to have the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that since 1923 it has been necessary in these cases to have the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General.
There is only one point in this context which I would be grateful if the Minister would consider. While we accept that things have changed greatly since 1923, when there were comparatively few drugs and poisons offences, the discretion that is rightly vested in chief officers of police is very wide. It is a discretion which I am sure the House will agree is, by and large, not abused, but every now and then a chief officer of police will, in a fallible world, perhaps in an act of aberration, bring about a prosecution in circumstances when it is wholly unreasonable to do so.
I am sure that the House will have in mind a case which occurred some two or three years ago, when a person who was a clerk in holy orders was delivering an address in the pulpit on the dangers of drug abuse and held up a phial which contained a white powder. He was later prosecuted on account of that, and this

was the subject of a free pardon a year or two ago. I appreciate that this applies only to indictable offences, since it was never necessary to have this consent in relation to non-indictable prosecutions, nevertheless one can envisage a situation when, perhaps, a mistake might be made in the future and a prosecution on indictment brought, say, against the parents of a boy or a young man who habitually persists in smoking cannabis in the home. The parents are perhaps torn between motives, on the one hand, and trying to do that which is right by society and reporting the matter to the police, and, on the other hand, of not wishing to see their son incriminated.
It would be right if the Home Office were to consider giving some guidance to chief officers of police in relation to family matters such as these, for such cases will probably be on the increase in the future.
I do not expect the Minister to reply to that point now, but I should be grateful if he would bear it in mind.

Mr. Sharples: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I reply to the hon. Gentleman? I should like to consider carefully the helpful suggestion which he has made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36

MEANING OF "CORRESPONDING LAW"

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 25, line 32, leave out from "aforesaid" to "that" in line 34 and insert "to the effect".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
If it is for the convenience of the House, perhaps we can discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 25, line 35, leave out from beginning to "evidence" and insert:
the law mentioned in the certificate shall be evidence and in Scotland sufficient".
The effect of these Amendments is to remove from subsection (2) of Clause 36 the provision that a statement in a certificate given by the Government of another


country as to the effect of a "corresponding law" of that country shall be conclusive as to whether particular facts constitute an offence against it. As redrafted, the subsection continues to enable the statement to be tendered as evidence of the matters stated but will allow an accused person to contest it by calling expert witnesses. The certificate will continue to be conclusive as to whether an overseas law is a "corresponding law" in the sense described in subsection (1). There is also a corresponding section relating to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37

INTERPRETATION

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 26, line 7, at end insert:
"corresponding law" has the meaning assigned by section 36(1) of this Act;

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment simply adds for the sake of clarity and ease of reference a reference to "corresponding law" in the list of definitions in Clause 37. "Corresponding law" is defined in Clause 36.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

CONTROLLED DRUGS

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 30, line 8, column 2, leave out "(dihydro-codeinone)".

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
If it is for the convenience of the House, perhaps we can discuss at the same time the following Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 32, line 11, column 1, after "Mephentermine" insert "Methaqualone".

Amendment No. 13 is a technical one concerning the identity of the drug Hydrocodone. Since the Bill began its progress through Parliament, "Hydrocodone" has become the name approved for this drug by the British Pharmacopoeia Commission. In these circumstances it is unnecessary further to identify the drug by its chemical definition—which I do not attempt to pronounce to the House—in the list of controlled drugs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame !"] Amendment No. 14 adds "methaqualone" to the list of controlled drugs. It will be recalled that we had a debate on this when an Order was moved adding it to the existing powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 40, column 2, line 11, at end insert:
(other than licence issued under regulations relating to addicts)".

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment to bring the words on page 40 that are descriptive of Clause 18(2) into line with those descriptive of Clause 18(1).

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRE PRECAUTIONS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 8

CHANGE OF CONDITIONS AFFECTING ADEQUACY OF CERTAIN MATTERS SPECIFIED IN FIRE CERTIFICATE, ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 11, line 17, at end insert:
or consists of premises of any other description prescribed for the purposes of this subsection".

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it will be convenient if we also take Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. Sharples: These Amendments were moved in another place by Lord Crowther and were accepted by the Government spokesman. They make considerable improvements to the drafting of Clause 8.

Clause 8(1) of the Bill, as originally drafted, empowered the fire authority to inspect premises covered by a current fire certificate, and the building in which they were contained, for the purpose of ensuring that the means of escape had not become inadequate by reason of a change of conditions. In the case of dwellings, 24 hours' notice had to be given before the power of entry could be exercised of right: in all other cases, the only condition attaching to the inspection was that it had to be at a reasonable time.

It was pointed out in another place that there could well be cases where a room or rooms in the various types of residential establishments covered by the Bill—hotels, boarding-houses, residential clubs and the like—could constitute the occupier's home. It was not suggested that a hotel bedroom occupied for a few nights could be so regarded, but there were often permanent residents who regarded their rooms as their home and kept their belongings there. It was considered that the privacy of such residents

should be respected in much the same way as if they were occupying a dwelling.

It was in order to meet this point that the Amendments were moved in another place. So far as I know from the information that I have, there is no record of a fire inspector abusing his powers in a way that might be suggested.

The effect of the Amendments is to give the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations, which will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure, which particular premises or parts of premises, in addition to dwellings, shall be deemed to require 24 hours' notice before entry can be made as of right. This will mean that when we come to consult, say, the hotel industry about the application of the Bill to hotels, we can consider whether regulations are needed specifying that bedrooms, except in defined circumstances—for example, when they form part of the means of escape specified in the fire certificate—shall be subject to this proviso. This is a flexible provision, and the advantage is that the requirement for a particular occupancy can be precisely defined.

I should add that these Amendments relate to inspections under Clause 8 in connection with changes in conditions: there is a similar proposal in subsection (5) of the new Clause 19 dealing with the general powers of inspectors, which we shall be discussing later.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the Minister of State has said, these are paving Amendments to the new Clause 19. We shall therefore raise the one or two points we have when we reach that Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 11, line 23, leave out "occupier proposes".

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it will be convenient if we also take Lords Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is to meet a point raised in Committee in the other place and clarifies the question of the responsibility laid on the occupier in relation to certain premises. I could explain the matter in detail if that is the wish of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think they will realise that this is a helpful provision. If they are prepared to accept it, I would recommend it to the House.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, but could he say a brief word about Amendment No. 9 which includes the phrase
proposes to begin to keep explosive or highly flammable materials"?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Under subsections (2)(a) and (b) we have left the obligation upon the occupier to give notice to the fire authority if it is proposed to make any changes. We believe that changes of the kind we envisage under subsection (2)(c) are very different, because the occupier of the certified premises would not necessarily know if some-one else in the same building were to begin storing large quantities of inflammable materials. The risk to the means of escape from certified premises could well be considerable. That is why we propose that the duty to notify this kind of change should rest not only on the occupier—where he is responsible—but also on any other occupier in the same building who has accepted contingent responsibilities under the fire certificate by virtue of Clause 6(5). Such a person, too, will now be under a duty to inform the fire authority direct of any change of the kind envisaged in subsection (2)(c) that he makes in his own part of the relevant building.

Mr. Brynmor John: Is that the limit of the change envisaged by the use of the impersonal "it is proposed" in subsections (a) and (b) instead of "the occupier proposes"? It seems to open up a wider field of people proposing to do these things. I take it that the hon. Gentleman now means the people he has already described.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 12

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE REGULATIONS ABOUT FIRE PRECAUTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 20, line 25, leave out first "section" and insert "subsection".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House to take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These are purely technical Amendments that improve the Bill in relation to bringing into operation certain measures and also do some tidying up in relation to the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We received large numbers of representations about the Cinematograph Act aspects when we first dealt with the Bill. The Minister of State was extremely co-operative and supplied us with explanations so that when cinema owners in our constituencies wrote to us we were able to give the Home Office view. I should not like to think that there would be the same amount of correspondence arising from the Amendments. Do I take the hon. Gentleman's assurance that they are severely technical, and that if we are asked about them we can use his words and say that no one need worry about them at all?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that there is no change of substance in the Bill. We appreciate that there was considerable concern in the cinematograph trade on certain aspects of the Bill. Many of the fears were unfounded, and we were very glad to give certain assurances in Committee. There is no reason why the Amendments should give rise to any concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 19

POWERS OF INSPECTORS

Lords Amendment: No. 14, to leave out Clause 19 and insert the following new Clause:
19.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any of the following persons (in this section referred to as "inspectors") namely an inspector appointed under section 18 of this Act and a fire inspector, may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying this Act and regulations thereunder into effect and, in particular, shall, so far as may be necessary for that purpose, have power to do at any reasonable time any of the following things, namely—

(a) to enter any such premises as are mentioned in subsection (2) below, and to inspect the whole or any part thereof and anything therein;
(b) to make such inquiry as may be necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) below;
(c) to require the production of, and to inspect, any fire certificate in force with respect to any premises or any copy of any such certificate;
(d) to require any person having responsibilities in relation to any such premises as are referred to in paragraph (a) above (whether or not the owner or occupier of the premises or a person employed to work therein) to give him such facilities and assistance with respect to any matters or things to which the responsibilities of that person extend as are necessary for the purpose of enabling the inspector to exercise any of the powers conferred on him by this subsection.

(2) The premises referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are the following, namely—

(a) any premises requiring a fire certificate or to which any regulations made under section 12 of this Act apply;
(b) any premises such as are mentioned in section 10(l)(a) of this Act;
(c) any premises to which section 3 of this Act for the time being applies;
(d) any premises not falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs which form part of a building comprising any premises so falling; and
(e) any premises which the inspector has reasonable cause to believe to be premises falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs.

(3) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(6) above are the following, namely—

(a) to ascertain, as regards any premises, whether they fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) above;
(b) to identify the owner or occupier of any premises falling within any of those paragraphs;

(c) to ascertain whether, in the case of any premises to which section 3 of this Act for the time being applies, any person has the overall management of the building constituting or comprising the premises and, if so, to identify that person;
(d) to ascertain, as regards any premises falling within any of the said paragraphs (a) to (d), whether the provisions of this Act and regulations made under section 12 thereof are complied with, and, where a fire certificate is in force in respect of any such premises, whether the requirements imposed by the certificate are complied with.

(4) An inspector shall, if so required when visiting any premises in the exercise of powers conferred by this section, produce to the occupier of the premises some duly authenticated document showing his authority.
(5) In the case of premises used as a dwelling or premises of any other description prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, no power of entry conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercised as of right unless twenty-four hours' notice has been given to the occupier; and for the purposes of this subsection a description of premises may be framed in any of the ways mentioned in section 1(4) of this Act.
(6) A person who—

(a) intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise or performance of his powers or duties under this Act; or
(b) without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement imposed by an inspector under subsection (l)(d) above,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to consider, with this Amendment, Lords Amendments No. 15, and 16.

Lords Amendment read a Second time..

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in the last line, to leave out '£50' and insert '£250'.

Mr. Sharples: The House will recall that we had a considerable discussion in Committee on Clause 19. In the other place, Lord Crowther and Lord Foot both felt that the powers in the Clause went further than was strictly necessary. They felt that the powers of inspectors, as drafted, seemed to amount to an unwarrantable invasion of privacy in certain cases, and that the arrangements for interrogating staff and other persons by


inspectors under the Clause as drafted seemed to be unnecessarily intimidating, especially if a police constable were present. Specific powers were taken in the Clause for a police constable to be present with the inspector if that were required.
As originally drafted, the Clause was based upon the precedent of Section 53 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1962. No complaints had arisen about its operation, and it was felt that one could rely on the experience and discretion of the fire service in exercising its powers. The new Clause still gives the inspector the powers that he needs, while removing those features of the original powers to which objection was made. Accordingly, the Government spokesman in another place accepted the Clause on behalf of the Government. In view of Lord Crowther's interest in the matter, assistance was given to him by the Home Office in the drafting of the Clause.
The redesigned Clause omits those parts of the original Clause which dealt with the formal interrogation procedure and the provision relating to the presence of a police constable. It also provides, as do the Amendments which we have discussed under Clause 8, for premises other than dwellings to be brought as necessary, by means of regulations, within the rule that 24 hours' notice has to be given before the power of entry to such premises is exercised as of right.
As to the formal interrogation procedure, the inspector still has power to make all necessary inquiries, even though a procedure is not prescribed. But, in practice, an inspector's inquiries are normally conducted in a spirit of friendliness and co-operation, and in the rare cases where someone wished to be obstructive, the chances are that, whether or not the formal interrogation procedure existed, such a person would persist in his obstinacy. In such a case, the new Clause provides ample grounds for proceedings by virtue of subsection (6). The other consideration is that the purpose of the interrogation procedure in the original Clause was to enable the inspector to arrive at the truth. The Amendment to Clause 22 takes care of this point by adding to paragraph (c) the offence of wilfully giving false information in reply to an inspector's inquiries.
10.45 p.m.
It is only in rare cases that the inspector would exercise the power to take a police constable with him, but it must be admitted that in serious cases of obstruction the presence of a police officer might not be conclusive. If the owner of a shady night club, say, still refused to admit the inspector, albeit accompanied by a constable, then neither would have power to force his way in, and other means of enforcing the law would still have to be found. Little or nothing is lost, therefore, by dispensing with this provision. Under Clause 19 this power might well be otiose.
In the context of the wide range of safety precautions which the fire authority can impose under the Bill, we are satisfied that the proposed modifications of the original Clause 19 will make no material difference in practice to the fire service in its enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. There is a consequential Amendment to Clause 20.
One matter which I think I should mention in view of the interest of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in the original Clause is that I accepted an Amendment moved by him on a point which he raised. I think it fair to point out that the adoption of the new Clause will have the effect of removing the Amendment made to the present subsection (1) (d) on Report stage. This Amendment was designed, rightly, to restrict the classes of persons who could be interrogated. Those restrictions are no longer required in the absence of the formal interrogation procedure itself.

This new Clause is regarded by the Government as wholly without prejudice to the powers of inspectors conferred by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, and the Factories Act, 1961. The differences are acceptable, however, because the Bill is concerned in part with private dwellings, a consideration which does not arise in connection with those two Acts.

The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) seeks to increase the penalty referred to in the Lords Amendment for withholding information from an inspector from £50 to £250. The penalty which the hon. Member proposes is considerably more than is contained in equivalent legislation for offences of the same kind.


Substantial offences under the Bill are concerned with contravening requirements of the fire certificate or using premises without obtaining one. If any obstruction of an inspector led to such an offence, the penalties for that substantial offence would apply.

I remind the House that there is a maximum fine of £400 on summary conviction and an unlimited fine and /or imprisonment for up to two years on conviction on indictment. The Lords Amendment to Clause 22(l)(c) introduces the offence of deliberately giving false information to an inspector. This is a necessary consequence of removing the formal interrogation procedure from this Clause. The penalty of a fine of £400 for this offence is for a substantial offence, not of withholding information but of wilfully giving false information. The reason for the higher penalty is that deliberately false information could mislead an inspector into thinking that the means of escape were adequate in a material particular when they were not. The penalty in the Bill as it stands is probably the correct penalty in relation to the particular offence under Clause 19 having regard to equivalent penalties in other legislation and also the limited nature of the offences covered by this provision.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Our reason for tabling an Amendment on this point in Committee was that we thought that many of the fines in the Bill were too low. Changes were made. The hon. Gentleman has told us why because of the different arrangements under the law, culminating in indictment, it is not necessary to raise the fines here. This is not the sort of subject for a large-scale political argument. It is a matter of balance, and I know that he will have been advised.
He will recall that in the Immigration Bill now being considered in Committee the point was made—yesterday or today I forget when because of the length of the sitting—that if we put too high a fine in the court of summary jurisdiction it leads to magistrates feeling rather tender because they think the sum is too high. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep an eye on these important matters, and I know that the fire services will.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) seems to be in the wrong House. It seems that we get further when we introduce Amendments in another place. This has arisen because of the interest taken in this by Lord Crowther, who has an interest in hotels. As he said, he had on his mind, maybe on his conscience, quite properly, the terrible fire at Saffron Waiden, at one of his hotels. I know from the quality of that group of hotels that this is something that would concern him. It was because of his feelings and consequent interest that this came up in another place.
In what fundamental way does new Clause 19 alter the question of fire precautions and inspections in hotels? Is it a great change or a marginal one? Why was it thought necessary to have a completely new Clause? There is widespread interest in the question of fire safety in new hotels. The Minister of State and I have a vested interest as non-lawyers. It would be interesting to know the answer.

Mr. John Tilney: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) referred to the fire at Saffron Waiden. A short time ago there was a fire in Norfolk Park. Had the Bill been enacted, would the damage that was caused to life in that fire have been prevented?

Mr. John: In answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), no undertaking was given by the Government in Committee for the immediate implementation of the Bill. So there would be two prerequisites: first, the passing of the Bill into law, and, secondly, its implementation by the Government, and the one does not necessarily follow on the other.
I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that the Government moved slowly, like an avalanche at first, and then collapsed completely when the Clause was discussed in another place.
My first concern is with the classes of people who can be interrogated by the fire inspectors, and not necessarily with the powers of the fire inspectors. We are dealing here with matters of life and death. The avoidance of fire precautions


can lead to avoidable death, and, therefore, fire inspectors should have a reasonable amount of power. Provided the people whom fire inspectors could question were sufficiently drawn, I was content with the original Clause. I read with some concern in paragraph (d) of the Amendment that the fire inspectors have power:
to require any person having responsibilities in relation to any such premises … (whether or not the owner or occupier of the premises or a person employed to work therein) …
Although this appears to reproduce the Government Amendment on Report, it is vaguer, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that.
I appreciate the point made in another place about the intimidation of the police constable. It is not a view which is normally accepted in enacting legislation designed to deter, but I accept that the Government were willing to concede that point.
In replying to the debates on Clause 19 the Minister said that inspectors would normally be drawn from fire brigades. To rob them of the presence of a police constable will put a much higher onus upon them, and place them in greater difficulty. They will have to be skilled not only in fire precautions but in matters of evidence and interrogation techniques which the presence of a police constable might avert. In the original Clause, both as it appeared before the Committee and after amendment on Report, the question of whether a person without reasonable excuse failed to comply with any requirement was subject to the proviso that the onus of proof that he had reasonable excuse lay upon him. That has been removed, and I wonder why. Provided we restrict the class of people who can be interrogated, I would not want to see the fire authorities—the inspectors—having themselves to discharge the onus of proof. I think that a person who fails to comply with any of the inspector's directions should have the onus of proof as to the reasonableness of his excuse placed upon him.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at these matters carefully because otherwise he is going to have the charter for evasion which we spoke about on other Clauses and which we all want to avoid. We do not want this Bill to be evaded; we want its provisions to be implemented both in

the spirit and in the letter. I suppose it is now too late to alter the Amendment but I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear these matters in mind in order to secure the proper working of the Bill.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Sharples: I assure the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that I take very seriously the points he has made. The House respects the considerable amount of knowledge he has of this subject and the great interest he took in our earlier discussions on Clause 19.

The Amendment was moved by a backbench peer in another place, and it is one which all of us, I am sure, agree with, in that the powers of the inspector, particularly when dealing with accommodation by private persons—whether it be hotel or private accommodation or any other kind—should be all that is necessary for him to carry out his duties but should not be greater or more formal or more intimidating than strictly necessary. It was with that in view that the Amendment was drafted, with assistance from the Home Office.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether or not the fire inspector would be concerned with matters of evidence. Any prosecution would, of course, be undertaken by the legal staff of the fire authority. Under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the onus of proof already rests with the defendant. That is why it was not considered necessary to write it into this Clause as redrafted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) referred to the recent fire in London. My understanding is that the coroner has yet to complete his inquiries, and I think, therefore, that it would be inappropriate for me to make any specific comment about it. It would be in order to say, however, that premises of this kind in inner London are controlled at present as to means of escape by the London Buildings (Amendment) Act, 1939. The difference between the provisions of the existing legislation and the Bill is that the Bill is more comprehensive because it covers not only means of escape but matters such as alarms, the training of staff, the marking of escape routes and the obligation to inform the fire authorities of any material changes in or to the premises. Present legislation excludes a good many hotels from control, but my


hon. Friend is right that the speed at which we bring these provisions into force in relation to hotels and similar premises depends upon the orders being made.

It is right, even after the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and I have been without rest for a considerable time, that, in view of recent events, we should give some urgency to this Measure. The hon. Member asked the important question: what fundamental difference does this make both to fire precautions and to the powers of inspectors? The answer is that it does not in any way weaken the fire precautions which can be required under the Bill and it does not weaken the powers of the inspectors to carry out the duties which we consider to be essential and which Parliament lays upon them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28

POWER OF COUNTY COURT OR SHERIFF, WHERE NOTICE UNDER S. 3 IS IN FORCE, TO MODIFY AGREEMENTS AND LEASES AND APPORTION EXPENSES

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 31, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert:
to section 12 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971;

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to take with this Amendment, Lords Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These Amendments are necessary because the Rent (Scotland) Act, 1971, a consolidating Measure, is now on the Statute Book. In fact, the Royal Assent was given to it

on 12th May. Therefore, these Amendments repeat, in terms of the 1971 Act, provisions which were already contained in the Bill in terms of the older Scottish rent legislation. These Amendments are purely consequential to the consolidation Measure having received the Royal Assent. The Act does not come into force until three months after it is passed, which will be 12th August, 1971. Therefore, there will be a transitional period during which the old Statutes have to remain in force. The Amendments are put in such a way that we retain the references at the same time to the older legislation. The two things have, so to speak, to run in harness together if they are to be effective. Obviously, we must keep the Bill up to date to keep pace with other legislation which has taken place since it was first introduced.

Mr. William Ross: I hope that the House will notice that these Amendments were made necessary because of the expedition of Scottish Members in dealing with Bills.
There will be no change in the effect of the Fire Precautions Bill, but these Amendments will be of considerable help to anyone who wants to study it. When I look at the original references and the part of the Schedule which applies to Scotland, it is the sorrow of my life that I was not a member of the Committee. It is such a jungle of jargon, with reference and cross-reference, that I defy anyone to read it and make any sense out of it.
I hope that the proviso is not taken for granted and that we shall just let things ride until August so that everything will come in tidily and people will refer to the 1971 Act.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) concerning certain parts of the Bill is of the essence, and no one should appreciate that more than Scottish Members. I remember when we first started on this operation, when we were in Government, how the need was highlighted by certain fires in Scotland.
I thank the Under-Secretary for his lucid explanation. I am glad that he has a voice. I hope that he has not been cheating too much while I have been in Scotland. I look forward to seeing him again tomorrow.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not defy himself to understand the original Schedule: he uses the long night watches to great effect. I am grateful for his tributes for the speed at which Scottish legislation goes through the House. No one knows better than he how to speed it, even though at times Bills of three or four Clauses take three or four months. I bow to his experience in these matters. I hope that his tribute to expedition will be carried forward. During his absence on important business, there was expedition in certain Committees. If he would be prepared to absent himself more frequently, we should get more Scottish legislation on to the Statute Book.
But I agree that we want to see this on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government in preparation of the Bill. It is because we do not want to wait until the Rent Act comes into force on 12th August that we are running these two pieces in harness.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a public authority concerned with civil aviation, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in pursuance of provisions of that Act relating to equipment for measuring noise in the vicinity of aerodromes.—[Mr. Channon.]

Orders of the Day — NEWTON AYCLIFFE (INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]

11.13 p.m.

Mr. David Reed: In seeking this debate on the industrial and commercial future of Newton Ayclifle New Town, my sole intention is to draw attention to certain problems in the town. I do not intend to imply any criticism of any organisations which have the varying degrees of responsibility for different problems. It is the number of those agencies which makes it difficult to apportion blame. This multiplicity has contributed to the uncertainty and unrest in the town.
Few parts of Britain can be so well cared for with so many organisations looking after different aspects of the community. For a town of 25,000, there are two rural district councils, one urban district council, one county council, one parish council, not to mention the Development Corporation and the English Industrial Estates Corporation. There are far too many cooks in the Newton Aycliffe broth. One would have to be a constitutional expert simply to understand who does what in local government. In the long term, this crazy situation must be resolved, and this can only be done by some form of democratically-elected local government directly responsible to the residents.
I am glad to say that in the meantime the Development Corporation has recognised the need for more information about the division of responsibilities and is doing something to get more information across to the residents. This is, at least for the time being, a step in the right direction.
My concern is for the situation which exists in the town now, whoever is responsible for it. It is the failure to achieve the targets which were laid down in the master plan which particularly concerns me, for this failure has caused hardship to my constituents.
This failure can be closely tied to one major cause, and that is the slow progress on the industrial estate. Indeed, the whole purpose of building Newton Aycliffe was connected with its industrial


potential. The master plan report, which was approved by the then Government in 1967, said:
It should be clearly understood that the raison d'être of Aycliffe New Town was the recognition of the growth potential of the Aycliffe Industrial Estate, and consequently the rapid growth of the New Town continues to be linked to the expansion of industry within the Darlington/Aycliffe growth point.
I am convinced that there is still tremendous potential for this industrial estate. However, in the meantime, growth has simply not been fast enough. During the six years 1961 to 1966 the creation of new employment went quite smoothly, with the number of jobs almost doubling, from 4,500 to 9,000. But the following six years were a different story, and by March of this year the net increase over the 1966 figure was only 343. Between 1970 and 1971 the figure actually fell by 742 jobs, though special factors were involved.
The fact remains that for almost six years the Aycliffe industrial estate has remained virtually stagnant, and it is already way behind the proposals in the master plan. The plan envisaged that by 1974 the working population in the new town would be 19,500, 15,000 of them on the industrial estate. It is an indication of the slow progress that in 1971, with less than four years to go to the target date, the industrial estate is 6,000 jobs behind its eventual target.
Apart from the long-term implications of the slow progress in industrial terms, it is the spin-off effect of this on my constituents who are living in the town that is particularly worrying, for the slow progress on the industrial front has meant slow progress in other directions. Although this has been somewhat confused by the two revisions of the population target—these have increased the target population from 10,000 to 45,000—some indication of the slowness can be gained by a comparison of the master plan targets with what has actually been achieved.
Consider, first, population. The year for which the latest figures are available is 1969–70. The target for that year was 26,122 people living in the new town. The Development Corporation's estimate of the actual population was 22,495. It can be seen, therefore, that on population

alone the new town is 20 per cent. behind its target figures.
In housing the trend is similar. The target for 1969–70 was 7,402 houses. In fact, the achievement was 5,920 or 20 per cent. in arrears. The Development Corporation is now building only 300 houses, perhaps less, every year, though it is in a position, if the demand warranted, to double, treble or even quadruple that figure.
Another indicator of progress is the shopping facilities that have been provided. They are a valuable indicator because they reflect the confidence that outside bodies, such as property developers and shop owners, place in the future of the Newton Aycliffe New Town.
Again, there is slight confusion because the town centre plan has had to be revised to take account of the change in population targets. But the pace of development in respect of shopping has still been far too slow. The master plan target for 1974 was for 315,000 square feet of shopping space. By December of last year there was in existence only 115,600 square feet of shopping space. This means that just over one third of the potential has been realised with less than four years to go to the target date.
This sort of slowness has also been illustrated in other respects—in the social, recreational and other facilities which are also lagging behind. I am glad to say that the local authorities and the Development Corporation are taking some steps to cope with the demand which already exists, and to a certain extent I am pleased to see that they are making progress in anticipation of future demand. But the overall effect of this slow growth has been a depressing influence on my constituents. That is what really concerns me at present.
In Newton Aycliffe there is very little sense of community spirit or civic pride in the town. This is largely because there is not very much that the residents can be proud of at present. One resident even described the place to me as a "transit camp" to which people came simply because rented accommodation was available there; they had little desire to put down roots in the town or to make their future homes and careers there; even if they had those desires there was little chance to do so because there


was not much private housing available for sale.
The present situation is that Newton Aycliffe needs a stimulus. Without a shot in the arm of some kind, there is little chance of the £16 million of taxpayers' money which has already been invested there achieving its aim of creating what I should hope would be a real community.
Since it is the industrial estate which is the root cause of the problem, it is to that that I draw the Minister's attention. Paradoxically, it is the very success of the Labour Government's regional policies which contributed to the slow growth in Newton Aycliffe, because the creation of special development areas in nearby places has meant that they were able to offer a far better deal to new industries. This has had the effect of pulling industry away from Newton Aycliffe, even some existing industry and certainly some of the industry new to the North-East region as a whole.
On unemployment figures alone, I appreciate that Newton Aycliffe does not merit special development area status at present. But it is worth bearing in mind that the industrial estate there serves a much wider area. I have had one estimate that over half the current working population on the industrial estate travels in from other places. I suggest that the unemployment figures themselves are not in this case the major criteria, and that Newton Aycliffe's very important rôle, in the sub-region which it serves, in itself demands that the town be given special development area status.
I ask the Minister whether he can confer with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry about the possibility of transferring control of the industrial estate from the English Industrial Estates Corporation to Aycliffe Development Corporation. Again this is not meant as a criticism of the work that the Estates Corporation has done in the past. I suggest, however, that the Estates Corporation has had to have other priorities—particularly the estates which it looks after in special development areas. This is understandable and I accept it. But it is a bad planning principle for the industrial and urban development of any new town to be in separate hands when it is unnecessary for it to be so. I think this applies even

when the two organisations in Newton Aycliffe have built up a useful working relationship in day-to-day terms.
Criticism has, however, been forthcoming of the Estates Corporation in two fields: one is its unwillingness to offer freehold sites to industry, because many industrialists look for the freehold of the site they are to develop; the other is the scale of rent it charges to tenants on the estate. The Development Corporation could and would be much more flexible in its approach to industry. I believe it would also be more vigorous in the promotion of the advantages of the industrial estate.
The birth pangs of Newton Aycliffe have lasted for over 24 years, and simply by acceding to these two requests the Government could give it the boost it now needs if it is ever to develop into a mature town and what I hope will be a sensible, straightforward working community.

11.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of Stale for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on raising this matter tonight, on the interest that he has shown since the General Election in the problems of Newton Aycliffe New Town, and on the many times he has raised this matter in the House since his election.
I must confess that one of the more hopeless tasks I was given in the General Election was to campaign in Sedgefield in the hope that I might possibly succeed in securing that the hon. Member did not actually arrive in this House. Although, ideologically, I am sorry to see him here, I think we all recognise on personal grounds, that in the activities he has carried out for his constituency he has proved himself to be an exceedingly able Member. I assure him that what he has said will be carefully considered by the Government. We will bear in mind what he has said on this as on other occasions.
I am replying to this debate because new towns largely fall within the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Therefore, I am concerned about the industrial and commercial future of Newton Aycliffe. I very much hope to have the opportunity of visiting the town in the not too distant future. Though


I have visited many of the new towns, I have not yet visited Newton Aycliffe or Peterlee. However, I have had the chance of having some short discussions with the acting chairman, Mr. Appleton, about the problems of Newton Aycliffe, and I learnt a great deal from him and will bear all this in mind.
The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the problems of Newton Aycliffe, and we will study with great interest the suggestions he makes, and I will come to two particular suggestions later. Some of what he says is the responsibility of other Departments, but I will make sure that the Ministers concerned see what the hon. Member has said.
I shall give a slightly different picture from that to which the hon. Member drew attention. He spoke of the slow growth of Newton Aycliffe. But let us face the fact that a lot of good has happened there as well. The Corporation was established in 1947, and it was a purpose-built new town to provide accommodation for workers on the industrial estate there. We are now in 1971, and it is interesting to reflect that the population of Newton Aycliffe in 1947 was 60 and today it is 24,000, and it is eventually expected to rise to 45,000. During that period of time 6,000 new dwellings have been built and 9,000 jobs have been provided. Of course, there is a great deal more to do and we are only half way towards the eventual population target for the town. But a lot has been achieved. The town has had a busy past, and I believe it has an extremely busy future.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these points, because it is right that we should now review the methods we use for tackling the important tasks that confront us in Newton Aycliffe, and how they should best be accomplished. I appreciate the anomalies that the hon. Gentleman raised in regard to the industrial estate. Among English new towns Newton Aycliffe is in a unique position. The estate is outside the designated area. It is under the control of the English Industrial Estates Corporation, which is an agent for the Department of Trade and Industry. The Development Corporation builds the houses and deals with all the numerous new

town problems, but the estate provides jobs in industry for the inhabitants of the new town.
I will raise with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Department now primarily responsible for the functioning of the estate, the hon. Gentleman's points about the disposal of freehold sites and the scale of rents in the estate.
After the Second World War the former Royal Ordnance Factory became the site for the estate. Former Royal Ordnance factories are providing the basis for development of a number of new towns, but they are not the ideal basis for a modern industrial estate. A great deal of effort has gone into the estate. It comprises 570 acres and has 3½ million square feet of factory space. At the last count it gave employment to over 9,000 people. About £1 million has been spent on site clearance works, and some £4 million on building works. The Estates Corporation has demolished 26 miles of overhead steam pipes and equipped each factory with independent heating, as well as removing miles of redundant railway track and demolishing 730 buildings. It has had quite a formidable undertaking.
It is true that employment on the estate has not changed much in the past two years, but in the past 10 years, as the hon. Gentleman knows from an answer to a Question he asked on 17th July last year, the numbers employed have more than doubled, from 4,500 in June, 1961, to over 9,000 today. During that period employment in manufacturing industry on the estate grew at an average annual rate of 570. I believe that there has been a remarkable transformation of the estate over the years, for which credit goes to those responsible for the estate.
The hon. Gentleman would like to see the estate transferred to the new town Corporation. There are difficulties in this, but I will bear in mind what he says. Any proposals for a change would have to take account of the interests of the firms established on the estate and of their employees, the valuation of the land and buildings, and the basis for transfer. There are a number of implications for the Corporation, such as


whether a transfer would involve extending the designated area of the new town. All these would have to be gone into, and there would have to be many consultations.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the hon. Gentleman on 10th May, the two Secretaries of State concerned will certainly consider any representations he cares to make on the topic. I gladly repeat that assurance.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman proposes to hold a meeting next week of a number of interested parties, and I hope that after the meeting he will be in touch with us once again so that we may consider any suggestions he puts forward. I particularly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the single-mindedness with which a development corporation would be able to tackle these tasks; he fairly points out that if they were the responsibility of the Development Corporation it would be its single-minded task to get industry for the estate. I cannot give the exact assurance which the hon. Gentleman would like, but we shall consider any suggestions that he cares to put forward, and I hope that he will make further representations to us. If he does, we shall study them sympathetically. The situation is anomalous compared with that in any other English new town.
The second matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is the possibility of special development area status. Obviously it would be impossible to give this status everywhere. To do so would defeat the purpose for which it was created. In many ways, Aycliffe is in a happier position than many nearby authorities which have been granted the status. There are real advantages in development area status, even without the special development additions. Perhaps I might remind the House that in development areas it is possible to get free depreciation, a 40 per cent. initial allowance on the construction cost of industrial buildings, rent-free periods on new projects, building grants of up to 45 per cent., loans, removal grants, assistance for key workers, training grants, and regional employment premium.
The hon. Gentleman cannot, and, to be fair, did not, bass his suggestion that

Aycliffe should have special development area status on the rate of unemployment in the area. No one can pretend that the latest figures for Aycliffe are wholly satisfactory, but I am glad to say that the unemployment rate for the Darlington-Aycliffe travel-to-work area in May, 1971, was 3·2 per cent. That is marginally below the Great Britain rate of 3·3 per cent. and well below the Northern Region rate of 5·4 per cent. The corresponding figures for Peterlee and Washington are very much higher, both over 7 per cent.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has suggested in the past that the unemployment problems of Newton Aycliffe are hidden, since the unemployment percentage rates are calculated for the Darlington-Aycliffe travel-to-work area but not for Aycliffe alone. This is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but it is a problem of definition which is very difficult to solve satisfactorily. The figures that I have given are the best available at present.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that industrial development certificates are freely available in the development areas, and in Newton Aycliffe itself, although it is a sad fact of life at the moment that there is too little mobile industry to go round when it comes to considering the problems of new and expanding towns. That is inescapable but, I hope, temporary. It is the responsibility of the regional offices of the Department for Trade and Industry to promote and steer industrialists to the assisted areas, and in the case of Aycliffe it is done by the Newcastle office.
Since August, 1968, four new advance factories totalling over 140,000 square feet have been completed. What is more, 20,000 square feet of new purpose-built building has been completed in the last two years, and another 65,000 square feet has recently been authorised. Since January, 1966, eight firms have set up at Newton Aycliffe, giving employment to more than 600 people. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman special development area status, especially since the rate of unemployment at Newton Aycliffe is below the national average. I wish I could give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks, but I am sure he will appreciate that it would not be possible


in the circumstances to give special development area status to Newton Aycliffe.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of other points, not so much tonight but in past Questions and previous debates, and we are considering them. One specific matter concerns the importance that he attaches to having a sufficient number of local members on the Newton Aycliffe Corporation. Certainly we have that in mind. There are already two members with local knowledge, and, when my right hon. Friend reviews the membership of the Corporation, which he hopes to do during the course of this year, we shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
We shall also bear in mind what the hon. Member has said in the past about the rôle of local government, and I certainly note what he has said about the very large number of local authorities that are connected with the town of Newton Aycliffe. He will know, of course, that the Government have published a White Paper on the Reform of Local Government. If authorities wish to make representations to my right hon. Friend about the areas concerned, they should be made in the very near future. If the hon. Member has any such representations

to make, he should write to my right hon. Friend.
I am very much concerned that all the new towns in the North should be a great success. I shall do everything in my power to achieve that. I hope to complete my visits to the new towns in the near future. We are determined to make a success of new towns such as Newton Aycliffe. I am sure that all Government Departments concerned will study what the hon. Member has said. If he cares to make more representations to us in the next few weeks, as I understand he has in mind, we shall be glad to consider them. We shall be glad to consider constructive suggestions such as he has made tonight which may add to the benefit and prosperity of Newton Aycliffe and help its industrial and commercial future. His remarks will be studied with great care. His concern for the wellbeing of his constituency is much appreciated. We shall do everything we can to help Newton Aycliffe to become more prosperous and to have a happy future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.